Which brand has the most insufferable shills?
>>4364489Fuji as active shills, Sony as defending knights, Pentax as actual userbase behaving with each other.
>ai slopWhichever one is your favorite
>>4364491At this point people just defend sony to make clive and the om5 snapshitter seethe. I prefer canon but defend sony just to make clive and the talentless om5 goon seethe. It’s fun.
>>4364496Why would wall of text schizo rants and samefagging make someone seethe? If anything it makes it look like you're the one seething lol
Contax T2
mamiya auto-lux 35
>>4364489>visit /v/: snoys are always crying>visit /p/: snoys are always cryingGotta be Sony.
>>4364516>someone is always crying about sony, getting debunked, and crying even louderwhat is it with this company and the irrational haters that are entirely confined to incel websitesis it because its for normal people not weird racist/sexist “gamers”
>>4364535Yes. Same reason /p/ seethes hard over fuji especially the x100.
>>4364489Sony. It's autistic as fuck. Omfg, the autofocus is 0.05 seconds faster and whenever other companies release lightweight lenses, Sony will release a lens 20 grams lighter!!! And don't forget the megapixels!!! How well anyone else compete?Their entire brand in consumer cameras is built on spec sheet fagging (and really, it tends to be how the company as a whole operates, it's really obvious they've got execs higher up that just tell their different divisions something like "market studies show having leading specs drives consumers to purchase our products," and autistic tech faggots make it true.But the fact is, outside of using color profiles, no one can actually fucking reliable tell the difference if your photo was taken on a Nikon or Sony or Canon or technically quite inferior fucking OM/Panny m43.But Sony fanboys are the only fucking people who act like you literally can't take good photos on any camera other than a Sony, and will cite some 0.5% better spec as proof of it. They're just autistic faggots.
Leica is a runner up. I appreciate Leica cameras and what they do as a brand, but Leica fanboyism (as opposed to actually appreciating Leica and using Leica) is mostly revolved around having an exclusive rich boy club. They call themselves professional photographers, have art studios and shit, and will tell you some inspirational story about years of arduous work to get to where they are, but you learn the truth and they are absolutely fucking hemorrhaging money paying rent and materials for their art studios and photography studios, Seriously -- I have an accountant friend and we pulled up local art photographers, most of whom I know use Leica, and they seriously have annual revenues of less than $48k a year. (Not all photography art studios, there were quite a few successful ones, mostly coming from working class backgrounds, but almost invariably rich boy art studios were in the red). They're all just posers living off of their trust funds.And because you don't shoot Leica you're a poor faggot not worth paying attention to.
Third place is the 4chan flavor of m43 fanboys. Only fucking place I've seen them act like this. They're simultaneously toxically critical of m43 cameras, but go autistically apeshit about not using m43, in some weird inexplicable logic that is obviously a result of years of taking /b/ seriously and mental illness.Actually, I think that's probably just one guy. But he's constantly on this board, and earns third place on his own.Pentax gets an honorable mention just for their insistence on being included in every consideration despite their utter irrelevance (Pentax is a pretty cool brand tho).And generally, Smartphone camera fanboys. No, your phone does not take good photos. Stop trying and except it for a decent snapshooter to remember spontaneous moments. Your phone doesn't replace DSLRs, it replaces point-and-shoots. And your AI-generated DoF looks like shit.And no, your phone being a gimmicky Chinkphone doesn't change that fact.
>>4364584its just a german autist (big surprise I know) that broke his nikon and his OM5
>>4364489As a filmbro I guess I can be pretty neutral to say canonikon bros are most annoying. All these talks how good their numbers are, how small their pancake and how big their holes, while snoy/oly/fuji and even iphone bros just taking pictures. This is what I see. Don't blame me, canonikoners. You retardness is your fault.
>>4364591snoyboys are taking photos? haha, of the most autistic, mundane shit, so then they can go home and blow up the picture to 400% and admire the sharpness of individual pixels.Not that people who use Sony pictures aren't taking good photos, but those are just photographers who use Sony cameras, not snoyboys.And every photography forum online is infested with autistic af snoyboys.
>>4364596Whatever you want to believe. That’s actually nikon users. They are all ken rockwell tier gearfags.
>>4364489Toss up between Leica & Sony.After trying them both & fucking off back to the boring ass Toyota truck of cameras, the evangelizing for the former pair of brands is particularly nauseating.
>>4364599Ken Rockwell takes good photos though, he'll take better photos than most of /p/ with a iPhone
>>4364599The Ken Rockwell tier gearfags are actually respectable in their pursuit of actually trying to art, regardless if they fail or suck or are cliche.But snoyboys, on the other hand, are taking pictures of brick walls or just their backyard or other lazy BS, but then brag about how they did it with a G master lens wide open and at ISO 100, and therefore, it's a superior photo to photos by Fujifags actually trying to take interesting portraits, even if it's merely trash cliche instagram poses, because those were taken at ISO 800 and have perceptible blurriness at 400% zoom. I have more respect for shitty artists that are trying than autists gearfagging with blatant disregard for any artistic sensibility.The advanced snoyboys take pictures of geese and swans when their parents take them on walks to the park or wind turbines or pool equipment or some shit as a part of their autistic obsession for that one item.
>>4364599Ur just jelly we have that aspie nerd spending 25 years of his life compiling that encyclopedia of every fucking one of hundreds and hundreds of lenses Nikon ever made with examples to compare. He may be a jpg shooting snapshitter, but he did build a handy reference.And considering how valueless photographs have become now, perhaps he was ahead of the curve going lo-fi jpegfag.
>>4364591>obvious samefag snoy shill schizo larping as a filmbrolmao nice trySnoys dont take photos. They are gearheads obsessed with charts and specs on paper. Not a single creative bone in them, only good for consooming next new alpha product.
>>4364489film>snapshit: :-|>snapshit, film: :-O
>>4364489Sony. There's no competition.
>>4364489Probably Canon, they are the most blatant on /p/ by far. Somehow they defend getting cucked by Canon not allowing third party lenses and just eat that shit up.
>>4364489Sony haters are the most autistic by far
>>4364650digicucks mad that film looks better even when its a snapshit. we cant stop winning
>>4364660Nah I'm a Canon shill and Canon are straight up money grubbing cunts. Great camera though.
>>4364673Anyone not saying this is clive or the talentless om5 german samefagging (one of them is op)
>>4364673>>4364686stop samefagging bro. We know you're seething here 24/7
>>4364489
>>4364489Sony haters. Most autistic, repetitive gearfag retards bar none.
>>4364679Based. The third party shit for their FF mirrorless put me off getting one, but maybe I'll change my mind if they truly open the flood gates in the future.
>>4364920>gearfags>IF YOU DONT SPEND $3000 ON A SONY A7IV AND GAY MASTER LENS DONT EVEN BOTHER TAKING PICTURES
>>4365015I’ve never seen anyone say this. I have seen them say that spending $3k on fuji is stupid because sony is the same price and better. Is that why you’re mad? The snoys said your camera was too blurry and slow to cost $2000?
>>4365033Not that guy but the only good thing I've seen someone say about Fuji is about the colors.
>>4365036Ive seen more people call the colors dead and dull. All fuji colors can do is sunsets reflecting off buildings, neon lit ramen stands, and blurry backs of heads in black and white.
>>4365038sounds like sovl to me, do you really need anything more?
>>4364489m43shilling a phone sensor must be peak schizo
>>4364489Apple
>>4365046>a phone sensorwhy do you love being a stupid nigger
>>4365304Based Leica mogging the field as usual
>>4365304>>4365319Fixed
>>4365330heh
>>4364489Sony, they just come off as desperate and pathetic
>>4365304Not that far off anymore, kiddo. as much of a difference as m4/3 is to APS-C now.
>>4365376>chinkphones do phonefags really lmao
>>4365376You forgot to mention the part where all of these are hardware-backdoored chinkshit the CCP has 24/7 access to. I don't think any of them even support lineage OS, so you're stuck with shitdroid - unusable, bloated, buggy, insecure crap that makes apples half-assed products look good.There's a reason apple is so rich, and it's how fucking bad android is if you don't flash your own ROM
>>4365374That's what I think about sony haters. How insecure does sony make them that they need to spam lies and repeat irrelevant garbage about breakfast 24/7?
>>4365402>>4365412literally a third of the list is nipponese brands (the leicas are rebranded sharps) just like your neekon, canon, panasoynic, and snoy brands. more non-CCP phones getting 1 inch sensors is inevitable in the future.
>>4365415>japan doesn't have spyware>still no lineageOS support, stuck with bloatware>japan only, no fully compatible with US networks
>>4365415Other than the chink phones they're all $20000 point and shoots with Android capability and most aren't easily accessible in the North American market making them irrelevant What does some $2000 Sharp or Sony phone have to do with me when I can't get it on T-Mobile America's largest mobile network
>>4365435I literally cannot get anything on this list from a carrier outside of Asia. And the cheapest one is the Xiaomi which still runs $700 despite being 2 years old. I wouldn't doubt if the Panasonic/Sharp/Leicas listed couldn't get American 5G bands making them essentially fucking worthless to use as a actual god damn smartphone
>>4364489film
>>4366318It do be like that
>>4364489is nikon, brandfags eve go dualwield with 28mm & 85mm for fresh scene
>>4364489Sony haters or micro four thirds shills
>>4364489That one autistic snoyfag that keeps on seething here
>>4366318is the guy on the right snapiness? Lol
>channel is called gear doesn't matter
>>4366599its not unusual>skill issue>consoom>gear doesnt matter gearfag>heres 20 different micro four thirds and aps-c cameras you should buy instead of your $3000 fool frame >also consider a few $1000 1" point and shits, and a $2000 iPhone>also look at these charts>i hope now you realize you are a consoomer gearfag ngmi who spent too much money and that gear doesn't matter>Every famous photographer: *buys 20 different expensive cameras just because they can*
sony cameras have no soul so it stands to reason that they have the most annoying fans
>>4364489Snoy
>>4364489>Which brand has the most insufferable shills?Unmedicated Sony shills
>>4364489Definitely the guy who keeps samefag spamming sony hate. You can tell he's in this thread because /p/ has 14 users and this thread has 50 replies of "ITS FUCKING SNOOOOY!">every other brand has problems: crickets>some woman dropped her snoy into the ocean: SNOY BAD!It's getting old. What brand do you even shill? Panasonic? Nikon? It's gotta be shit if you feel threatened by a brand that doesn't even have a real APS-C lineup.
>>4364489this guy is clearly dysgenic and hard to watch just on that fact alone.
>>4364489Hasselblad morons, praising "color".
>>4367671One look at any canon, sony, nikon, olympus, fuji, panasonic, pentax, iphone, samsung etc photo will tell anyone with functioning cone cells that hasselblad morons are right about color.Every brand has a garish or dead and zombielike "look" except for hasselblad, which looks exactly like real life. Sony will yellow your greens. Canon will silver your blues. Fuji will smear together your magentas, reds, and beiges. Olympus just looks weird. Panasonic and pentax just look lifeless. But hasselblad looks like life.
>>4367672JPEG-talk.
>>4367673No. Not jpeg talk. Raw talk. >but raws have no color!Yes, raws have color. The lens, the CFA specs, the sensor itself, the processing following it before it even hits your SD card, all filter out light and information. You can not add it back in. And then you need accurate profiles to turn what is actually a monochrome photo with notes for which color the filter was for each pixel into color again. Hasselblads properietary profiles are the most accurate. They are not made available to anyone else. Capture one can't even provide support for hassy, because hassy won't let them. They only allow lightroom to receive a half baked profile they personally recommend against.
>>4367672You want nice colors? accept no substitutes
>>4367678>portra for the white model>oh shit this one is brown time to switch to gold>oh shit this one is black time to switch to ektar
>>4367677I'm aware of that. DxO is not showing anything "extra" in terms of metamerism unless you know something that they omitted (I'm open to that possibility).I've downloaded RAW's from dpreview from test scene, and developed them side by side and force default color profile.https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Hasselblad/X1D-50c---Measurements
>>4367679>negroes only look good with Ektar>its the most expensive onewhat did kodak mean by this
>>4367685Ektar is cheaper than portra in 120 (the real roll film format)
>>4364489Digital cameras in general>Digislugs think right looks better>"I bet I could photoshop the problems out and have AI add the missing details. Film is worse because it has grain." - digislugs[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4367722Does right even have fine detail? Looks like phone processing
>>4367722Is that micro four thirds or a 12mp nikon
>>4367722>iphones look better than 4x5. look, no grain, and its so sharp!Also is it just me or is half the left headlight falling out of focus>film is the best!>sorry i had to shoot at f1.4 i cant handhold anything longer than 1/125
>>4367672I'm colorblind so none of that matters thankfully. Shit I'm glad I can't spend hours trying to figure out the nuances between certain colors.
>>4367685Kodachrome, the best slide film ever made, sent darkies to the shadowrealm.
>>4366599lmao
>>4364489Lately its been that one Sony shill. He seriously needs to take a chill pill.
>>4364489OM system
>>4364489In any industry where Sony is a player, it's Snoy shills
>>4368326>latelyoh sweet summer child
>>4368391So its always been this bad? Jesus.
how many times is the samefag op going to say sony?until he gets jannied for sony thread #8?
>>4368445>everyone loves SNOYNo.
>>4368477Most people are and should be neutral towards canon and sony. They make the generic "good" cameras that just work for everyone except huge autists that hyperfocus on one specific task.You can't deny that ever since someone pointed out "clive from sony rumors pancake posting" that we've been flooded with sony shitposting. There have been 5-6 threads about hating sony up at any one time and every thread on the board is full of sony shill wars.So, are you a reverse psychology sony shill, or a very aggressive panasonic shill?
>>4368484I fucking canon so fucking much that is insane
>>4368485>panicking so hard from being caught shilling you forget how to speak englishGood morning saar.
>>4368484Meds
>>4364491Damn, that was spot on.
>>4364580Also spot fucking on.
>>4366345I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Nikonfag crying on /p/. Meanwhile every single thread has that sonyfag samefagging, shitting on other brands, and posting nophotos.
>>4367722Stop spamming the board with this shit. You got destroyed in that thread and started acting like a child. Now you're spamming an edited version of that crop (check file size) and samefagging like the autistic infant that you are. For anyone interested here's the thread, and picrel is one of the many comparisons that make this faggot lose his shit.>>4362125[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4369396Take your meds and stop having meltdowns schizo
>>4369399[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotImage Width1200Image Height1093
I find it funny seeing how people fight about camera brands/models like they'd fight about which guitar brand/model they like best. I've been in the music world for 20 years and only done photography as a fun side hobby the last 12-13 or so. Bought a 5dmkii way back and it's been my only camera all those years. Had the shutter fixed once from wear and tear, but other than that it's still a great camera.I don't care about or have any loyalty about cameras. I have some friends who swear by Canon, Sony, Nikon etc. but I think all their cameras are cool.I would love to have one of each, but my trusty old 5dmkii still serves me well.So who gives a fuck about what the name on the camera says as long as it takes shots you like.It's the same in the guitar world. People will endlessly fight about Gibson quality control and "my Partscaster is better than your masterbuilt Fender!". If it plays and sounds like you want, then who gives a fuck what it says on the headstock.
>>4369437Ford vs Chevy. Mac vs PC. Canon vs Nikon vs gaming company toys.
>>4369448Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. In regards to guitar gear, I have guitars ranging from cheap beaters up to custom shop stuff and I use them all because they all add something different. I wish I had money to do that with cameras too. I'd like "one of each" because they pretty much all make good shit.I mean are there really any camera companies that make straight up bad stuff? In this day and age everything just has a certain level of quality to it.
>>4369453>I mean are there really any camera companies that make straight up bad stuff?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotImage Width1200Image Height1284
>>4369464See, you post an example there, but given what I see people either being extremely for or against Sony, I don't know how prevalent problem is.Also a lot of companies make mistakes, but in general I still believe my statement holds true to the general products of the camera market. At least from what a casual hobbyist can see.In the music world, it's fucking insane the amount of quality you get from low to medium ranged instruments these days. Same with amps, pedals and all the accessories. Even since I started playing until now. It's insane what you get for your money these days and it's incredibly rare for any product to be down right shit.
>>4369469It's not really prevalent, considering that one single camera outsold all all of its competition - combined.https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/bcn-reports-the-sony-a7iii-sells-two-times-more-than-the-competition-combined-canon-r-canon-rp-and-nikon-z6/Manufacturing is a number game. For every million you make, with the best QC on earth, you will have several THOUSAND defective units with a brewing manufacturing flaw (usually from an outside source like nidec copal) that could never possibly be spotted in a finished unit without intensive scanning electronic microscope and x-ray analysis.>>4369469Sony is a company that other brands fanboys think is Gibson. But their volume is so high, it's more like they're fender, generally good but total failures are inevitable. Sony's actual problem is they do not stand by their manufacturing failures by offering an actual fucking warranty, but neither does any other camera company. When people opened their boxes and got thousands of defective R5IIs, canon charged people money for repairs.
>>4369396I don't get it. The left side is higher resolution and more detailed. On the right side, you have some colored lines turning gray and lots of sharpening artefacts that weren't in the original print.The whole fucking chari river is a continuous line on left, and a broken line on the right, because the bayer camera didn't resolve that detail, it was just reconstructed.Great example of honest resolution vs. "I cleaned it up in post, look at how much sharper it is after I increase sharpening"
>>4369491>Neither does any other camera companyit could always be worse, you could be dealing with hasselbladexponentially less units sold than sony, same number of defects, even worse service.https://www.reddit.com/r/hasselblad/comments/1ca5y4b/i_have_lost_hope_in_hasselblad_customer_support/https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/irfkeu/got_my_hasselblad_907x_50c_medium_format_huge/Or leica. Almost no sales. Entire model lines are unbuyable on the used market because the sensor rusts or its actually two sensors and when the camera turns 5 the stitch line becomes a giant green stripe in every photo, among other hardware failuresAll things considered, the only camera company you can patronize right now and expect something that works, and service if it doesn't, is canon EUROPE. Europe specifically. Canon USA will assfuck you if you get a defective camera. Sony will not help you. Nikon will sell you a camera, recall it, and then hold it for 5 months before mailing it back to you with a new problem. Only canon EUROPE is worth dealing with.
>>4369491Yeah I could see Sony being like Fender. Leica would be more like Gibson in my eyes. Especially with how Gibson have changed their business model the last five-six years.Gibson is like Harley Davidson of guitars.
>>4369495Hey, HDs dont roll off the lot with half as many quality problems as gibsons.>Be me>Order $3000 LP standard>binding looks like it was chewed on when a mexican worker brought his chihuahua to the factory>exchange 3x>every single guitar has chewed binding, one has paint splatter on the fretboardMeanwhile harley just makes bikes that handle and run like shit compared to based indian
>>4369498I have a Gibson 335 I bought 17 years ago. It has my favourite neck and is just an overall incredible guitar.But Gibson does have a persistent quality control problem. I don't know if Leica has that or not, but I'd definitely class Leica and Harley Davidson in the same target demographic (middle age and up men with a shit ton of disposable income)I wouldn't be able to afford the 335 I have now with the current prices. Not sure how Leica is. Last I was seriously looking at one was when the M9 was the shit. I don't remember it being as expensive as the M11 is. But the same was true for when I was looking at the new 5d versions. Prices always went up.
>>4369498>Based indianOh boy I want an interceptor 650 so fuckin badly. Talk about a company that turned itself around
5 Star Michelin Restaurant: LeicaMcDonalds: Canon, NikonStarbucks: FujifilmTaco Bell: Panasonic, Olympus, PentaxIHOP: Sony
>>4369592Mmmm pancakes
>>4369469People on this board are against Sony because Sony fans (or at least one who samefags) won't STFU. They are the white knights of photography, and you can't say anything against m'lady Sony.Being serious for a moment: it took Sony a long time to work out weather sealing, AF, and ergonomics. Their earlier bodies also tended to have odd issues like off sensor flare and star eater (not sure if that one has been resolved). And I still don't care for their color science. Other than that they're not bad, and they were smart to open their mount.
>>4369492>filmfag samefagging againCircle in red where the left is higher resolution.>reeeeeeeeee
^Proof digital cameras have the worst fanboys
>>4364580
>>4369492dude are you blind? right is so much better its not even a contest.
>>4369764That's because you think grain and details existing is worse than no grain and details fading due to bayer nonsense>blue line turns dark greyMost people are like this which is why they think their iphone 15s night mode looks better than your FF nikon despite clearly being a bunch of blobs and smears.
>>4369770dude the rivers are blue and there's no artifacts. are you zooming to 10:1 and seeing artifacts from your viewer? right is so much clearer it's like someone shot 35mm and compared it to 4x5. left is missing relief texture, film got its ass kicked here.
>>4369786The photographer was so shit he had to resort to scanning maps. The landscape photography comparisons and charts are better and done by a more competent and trustworthy individuallow iso sheets > 100mp large format fuji iso 100 and less 6x# MF film ~= 400 speed 4x5 ~= 80mp medium format p1 > lesser cameras
>>4369808Forgot my > after large format fuji, also if you load kodak gold or portra 400 your glorious medium format film suddenly loses to an a7rii
>>4369786Why are the borders that run through lake Chad completely missing on the right?
>>4369813Because bayer cant distinguish subtle colored details without at least 50% more resolution than you think you need. A 5ds, a7r2, etc is merely better than 645.But once you actually have that extra resolution digital stomps all over film by achieving max res and contrast all the way down into pitch black shadows>>4369811. Hence the GFX100 walks all over everything but 4x5 slide film that has shit for DR and only has a little extra grainy resolution. Then it merely edges it out, and film gearfags run crying to 8x10 and all 3 available film stocks selling for $20 a shot.
>>4369813They are different versions of the same map, its not a valid comparison in either direction. But this >>4369815 is true regardless. Bayer has legitimate limits… and by the time you own a 100mp large format digital they’re gone. That will be $2500 body and lens. The idea that digital is worse comes from the days when having more than 50mp would cost you $50k.
>>4369808why can’t you just admit digital won? i looked at the other thread and digital won every comparison. the portrait was insane i want a 5dsr now
>>4369819looks valid enough to me digital stomped. i would rank 50 mp > mf and the gfx probably beats 4x5
>>436983350mp is not even close to low iso mf film unless you’re shit at photography or think seeing grain = details dont count because they arent “sharp”(ened)When digital came out the people saying 8mp outdid 35mm were saying they couldnt figure out how to get 35mm sharper. Now we know 1 35mm frame of ektar = 24mp, because we arent pre-google GWACs using shatbeds and nikon coolscans on the basis of drum time being expensive. Now, anyone can camera scan with 36-50mp and tell immediately. If you look at valid, apples to apples comparisons this is clear. You NEED fuji large format if you want to out-resolution low iso 6x6+ scans done by competent film shooters. Just ask anyone camera scanning their film for every last detail. You’re only close to the bottom of 6x7 with 61mp sony + 4 shot pixel shift. Never mind the drums and flextights, MILC scam quality is higher and more consistent.
>>4369833The portrait that was compared to a low res, posterized 645 scan that looked worse than the output of a epson v850Map spammers comparisons are wholly invalid Listen to people who use the same test target and are not so incompetent that /p/ is their only outletYou need 80mp to come close enough to low iso 6x7 and diffraction softened high iso 4x5, 100mp will comfortably outdo it even pixel peeping for license plate numbers and definitely replace it for real world use. 50mp however, is substandard. It SHOULD look close for many things but 24mp also looks close to 36mp looks close to 50mp for many things. Ultimately you are getting what you pay for. Coping about how aa filter softness isnt that bad and insisting the sharpening and lower grain make up for it… while mf film has more details, and fuji large format takes a dump on both. 5ds shill anon is essentially a micro four thirds shill. >if i kneecap the superior format its just as bad if not worseReal world: you need 100mp fuji large format to fully mog 6x9 and most real world 4x5.
>>4369840dude, the maps are sharp, the portraits were sharp nobody fucked up, 50mp won
>>4369843Also “real world” 4x5 is normally not even as good as a d810, sheets are not a great format outside of a controlled studio environment or perfectly still day with the perfect shot for the perspective, FOV, and ideal aperture. The majority of photos done on sheets are significantly softened by diffraction, motion blur, and minor focus misses, and the vast majority of lenses for 4x5 are soft even for 4x5.
>>4369843you keep writing paragraphs, i believe my eyes. this is like a religion for you. no wonder digibro got pissed
>>4369844Dude, you’re comparing entirely different photos with dramatically varying scanning methods, often not noted, and getting results THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THOSE DONE MORE SCIENTIFICALLYJust because you have a comparison does not mean it is valid. Use the same targets and modern scanning methods or silence yourself. 100mp > 80mp = most 4x5 = low iso 120 > 50mp. Sorry. Come back when you can use the same target twice and not scan on a shitty ass flextight. Maybe give a GFX a go and scan your film with that. DR and detail will be ahead of drums and virtual drums.
>>4369848Your eyes are looking at disparate, invalid comparisonsLike comparing a7r2 raws shot by a camera tech to thrice edited web sized canon r5 jpegs shot by a karen and saying “sony wins”. Dishonest. You need 100mp to replace anything bigger than 645. Anything else is you making shit up about secret scaling algorithms.
>>4369849didn’t he have scans from a 10,000 ppi scanner? if film can’t win with that then film lost. you keep repeating yourself but you have no comparisons he had like a half dozen
>>4369850they look valid to me, youre the one who sounds like a micro four thirds shill with all the excuses but no comparisons. if film is only better in a lab with perfect everything and a 50,000 ppi scanner then i guess films not better.im out this is like debating a jehovah witness, next you’re going to tell me evolution is a lie and the earth is flat
>>4369852He did, and those 10k ppi scans dramatically outresolved his upscaled 5dshit while he coped>BUT THE EDGES ARENT AS CRISP AND I CAN SEE GRAINDespite the cannot pos having a test target that was twice as large in the frame, and LESS DETAILED target as well… what good is the comparison then? If you arent using the same subject you are not comparing cameras. Full stopIf you change the subject twice, the scanner once, and the lens and camera twice every testYour. Results. Are. Not. Valid. >>4369854Silence yourself until you can meet the basic standards of science. When you compare two cameras, you use the same target, with the same light. When you are doing several film comparisons at once all film must be scanned the same and the method documented. You have not met these conditions. Silence yourself. Jim Kasson and Tim Parkin HAVE met these conditions. You have not. Their results are valid. Yours are not. A canon 5ds is henceforth assumed insufficient to replace good MF film work. It can have less grain and is far easier to clean up. But it is not a full replacement. A GFX100 is. A GFX100 has more dynamic range and can achieve more resolution in less scan time (a single shot for ALL color film except for slow 4x5 slides and maybe ektar, i’d have to see it, pixel shift and stitching go far further into details that are not even usable)… than every film scanner invented and used in human history. It is better than an expertly operated drum. It is better than any flextight or epson. Rent one if you want your resolution tests to be taken seriously.
>>4369855now you’re just lying the headlights were the same not twice as large and digital won. and the results are the same despite changes that means film is at its limit so a 10,000ppi scan won’t help the map which is same everything and a perfect test. you tell people to shut up and respect science but you have no science to show just name dropping people who ramble like you. this is a religious belief for you but if film is so much better how come he posts comparisons but you don’t?
>>4369874>Digital wonDigital had less grain, instead it had weird colored blotches. It also had less details, and no one should care --->because the headlight you photographed also had less detail<---.I agree. You're not testing cameras. You're testing your skill issues with different cameras. Same subject, same light, same framing, proper exposure, and don't use random scans like a retard, use the same quality repeatable scanning method over and over again (ie: rented gfx, vibration isolation table) or you're not even testing cameras. You're just shitposting.And for what? Because you want a cheap DSLR to "win" something? It's really quite a shitty camera, it's cheaper than a D850 for a very good reason. Whatever it beats, there's another dozen cameras ahead of it anyways.
>>4369919im not him and digital has more details in every comparison. you are a fanatic, you make micro four thirds users look sane.
>>4369959>im not himkek nice try, cope
>>4369960
>>4369855What is this bullshit? Why the fuck are you shitting up other threads, including /gear/, when you ran away a coward from the last thread we argued in, refusing to answer any questions and shit posting like a 12 year old?Let's recap this debate:- You have ZERO valid objections to the map comparison. The film side is sharp, detailed, well exposed, professionally shot and scanned on a drum scanner which resolved grain. Film just lost.- You have ZERO valid objections to the portrait comparison. The film side is sharp, detailed, well exposed, professionally shot and scanned on a high end Noritsu scanner which resolved grain. Film just lost. It's 645 but if what you say about film is true, 645 should have won or at least pulled even. We can see the fucking grain which means a better scanner would NOT have helped.- Your only maybe decent objection to the car tire comparison is relative tire size because I originally scaled to a crop they presented of the VW bug tire. I ran the numbers and scaling factor and made sure it was in the ballpark, but I should have scaled the whole image and then cropped the tires. Problem with your complaint is that the Corvette tire IS larger in real life. When you resized them you made the digital side obviously too small proving you're a liar or you've never seen a bug or a vette in real life. Note that tire bolts in mine are comparable in size meaning my scaling was certainly close, yours was a lie, and a pretty shitty one since the 5Ds won either way.cont[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3142Image Height2014Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4369855cont from >>4369975- You have ZERO valid objections to the headlight comparisons. I explicitly scaled the 5Ds image to the 6x9 scan's dimensions (minus border), then took equal sized crops from both. The film side is sharp, detailed, well exposed, professionally shot and scanned at 10,000 ppi fluid mounted on a reprographic scanning system proven to resolve at least 500 lp/mm (test chart scan is on their site). I don't think there's a better scanning setup any where in the world, literally. HXY scans out perform everything else, every drum, every home camera scanner setup, Imacons, all of it. Film just lost. I'm the one who should have objections to the comparison as the 5Ds was shot headlight at edge of frame at f/2.8 hand held on a zoom lens. On 6x9 the headlight was near center shot tripod mounted with a prime at optimum aperture. The 5Ds still won.- When asked to circle in red the areas where you think film resolved more detail, you refuse. Why? Because you can't find them either.- When asked to circle in red the areas where you think there's aliasing or a 'Bayer mess', you refuse. Why? Because you can't find them either.- You betray your own thoughts by consistently screaming "film is better! BUT HERE'S THE EXCUSE WHY IT'S NOT!"Oh, and you REFUSED TO ANSWER my questions about Adox, and we both know why. I'm ready to post another comparison, this time against 35mm Adox scanned at 24,110 ppi, proving that Serger's claims about Adox resolution in the real world are bullshit. Serger claims "oh noes film is limited even by a drum scanner" but the HXY scanner is PROVEN to exceed 500 lp/mm. They provide the evidence on their site, an actual downloadable scan of a test chart. Imagine that, posting evidence. You could learn a thing or two from www.high-end-scans.de[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePTGui Pro 12.3 (www.ptgui.com)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5000Image Height2500Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4369855Your only pieces of "evidence" are blog posts which you refuse to link to. You name drop people and scream SCIENCE! because you're incapable of posting your own comparisons (nocamera?), but no science is present.- Henning Serger's comments aren't even in a blog post, they are in a god damn forum (LMFAO). A bunch of old men in a circlejerk while they tell each other how many lp/mm film captures but with ZERO EVIDENCE. Here's the blog post and the forum link. Funny that I will post them but you WILL NOT.https://jpbuffington.com/?p=167https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/There is literally ZERO evidence in that forum discussion and blog. Nobody backed up their numbers with scans, microscope shots, anything. The only photos are on page 3 and they're shitty, soft, scratched, grainy snapshits. Just a bunch of boomers saying "hurr I got these numbers film rulz!" with zero evidence, zero experimentation, zero science. Grandpa told you he once catched a 100 ft long prehistoric and extinct fish but can't provide a photograph and you not only believe him you scream IT'S SCIENCE!!!- I can't even find whatever you're attributing to Jim Kasson, and I'm sure you won't link it.- The only thing I can find from Tim Parkin is from fucking 2009. Just like with Henning Serger there is ZERO EVIDENCE. No film scans, no microscope shots, nothing, nada. One shitty crop that's supposed to prove something about the color resolution of a fucking original Canon 5D. Besides that just a bunch of words where he repeats common myths and lp/mm claims backed by nothing.http://www.timparkin.net/2009/12/colour-digital-vs-film-resolution/NOT ONE of your precious authors meet the standards of science. You have to perform a fucking experiment, one others can repeat, and provide evidence to meet the standards of science. Neither you nor your names have EVER done this. Your evidence amounts to shit posts on a forum.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3840Image Height3840Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4369855The ONE LINK you will post is a blog post comparing an IQ180 to 4x5. And what do we see at that link?- They purposely botched the comparisons by using shitty pixelated scaling algorithms for digital.- 6x7 Provia could NOT resolve line pairs beyond the point where the IQ180 aliased.- Before the digital aliasing/film mush the IQ180 clearly out resolved 6x7 Provia (much sharper).- You need 4x5 or Adox CMS 20 II in 6x7 to out resolve the IQ180 on a high contrast line chart.- In the real world the IQ180 got within 95% of the resolution of 4x5 Porta.All you have are excuses, lies, question begging, special pleading, and childish taunts. You've got nothing.So what can we conclude from all of this? In the real world 50mp like a 5Ds > 6x9 for any film except a microfilm like Adox CMS 20 II. That means a GFX with a 50mp sensor is also better as it edges out FF 50mp. That means GFX with a 100mp sensor is FAR better and can out resolve film in 4x5, again with the only exception being a microfilm and maybe an ISO 25-50 B&W film. You can add 45mp bodies like the D850 and R5 to the list of cameras that beat 6x9 because there is very little difference between them and 50mp in the real world. So little you can only see it at the extinction point of a line chart test.tl;dr 45-50mp beats 6x9. It's that simple. Now start acting like a child which is what you always do when you LOSE.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2370Image Height1185Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4369976Note: when I say "Adox" I mean Adox CMS 20 II. Trying to keep the character count down so I just typed Adox, but they make many B&W films. Or at least they used to, I don't know what their supply situation is like right now or if they're even back to shipping CMS 20 II.
>>4369855Oh, and let's point out a few other things in this stupid debate.- You have repeatedly lied claiming AI scaling algorithms are used. I have never used one, I consistently use Preserve Details 2.0 in PS and if I try one I will note it as such.- You have repeatedly lied claiming sharpening where none was used. I openly state when I use and do not use sharpening.- You have repeatedly lied claiming NR where none was used. I openly state when I use and do not use NR.- You absolutely refuse to post any comparisons of your own, bringing into question whether or not you have EVER honestly compared digital and film.- You refused to prove you even own a camera when asked.- You explicitly lied about Portra 400's resolution, claiming it was "exponentially lower" than slow speed slide films. This was when saying "film won BUT HERE'S WHY IT LOST" in regard to picrel. Portra is not "exponentially lower", you don't even know what that means, in reality it's quite close and I posted the data sheets to prove it.The absolute best part of your stupid posts is the flip flopping. "Film won but here are a dozen reasons why it lost." You betray your own thoughts and absolute lack of confidence in your own claims with every post.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>ctrl+f my camera>no results>ctrl+f my brandno results Instant Chads stay winning, celebratory shilling is in orderMight i recommend the new Reclaimed Green 600 film.You may remember the beautiful Reclaimed Blue of 2023, but this year, yellow dye has been added, resulting in a beautiful range of Black&Green.alright im sorry.>inb4 fucking SX-70 film shills
>>4370105instant film is cool but too expensive for me, I will keep with the instax mini
^TLDR meltdown full of foot stomping, screaming, repetition, lies, and misrepresenationhe keeps spamming that 4x5 comparison and forgets to quote the part of the blog where the 4x5 shot was stopped down and diffracted more... kek.Digiturd is either a child, or severely autistic. Instead of arguing he just repeats himself and writes these bullet point arguments addressing the 3+ people who have disagreed with him as a monolithic "YOU!". If this is the average digital camera fan, I'm proud to shoot film.
>>4370107yeah honestly valid, I shoot maybe 4-5 packs a month at absolute most.Mini is a super cute format too though, much prefer it over Go.thought about trying the Wide but the options are sadly quite limited, outside of going modular.maybe the Lomo
>>4370105Why do I want to run these photos over with my car?
>>4370116why does he scream and cry the same shit over and over again when his entire argument falls apart instantly>mapfag posts a "comparison">its not the same photo and his results contradict several people who are not mentally ill 4chan users>therefore nothing has been saidI think he knows he's wrong. He's trying to win by being louder.
>>4370116>he keeps spamming that 4x5 comparison and forgets to quote the part of the blog where the 4x5 shot was stopped down and diffracted more... kek.and it still looks better>digital camera turns the orange grass green>"its just one edit away honest"what edit, masking individual leaves? once something is green, its green.
>>4370120don't know anon, you tell me why
>>4370118instant film would be a lot funner, if they could somehow make it work like a normal camera and not a "haha fun roulette your photos might turn out to be super blurry or hard to see" camera for teenage girls who think using janky equipment makes their button press more creativeat least you can sort of get it... by buying an instax printer and a $1500 fuji ILC kit.
>>4370116>>4370122>>4370124>samefagging>literally ZERO evidence>nothing but excuses>running to other threads like a little bitchSame as always.
>>4370124Oh I forgot...>muh diffractionDumb bitch doesn't understand what equivalent aperture is. m43fag confirmed.
boy do i love me some gear discussion from people who only use their cameras to pics in their living room and that tree from that one time they went outside
>>4370127just dont get a casual model then.people are still keeping the old folders in mint condition and theyre still taking great shots.the 600SE is still relatively cheap if you need more manual control and ILCThere's a model for everyone, no matter how much or how little handholding you need or want.and if the teenage girls keep buying the wonky aesthetic hello kitty whatever models, who cares , they're dipping their toes into photography on a real level, and theyre not hogging all the good shit.
>>4370137>>4370138>Zero evidenceThere's plenty of evidence that proves you wrong, map spammer. You just spam over it and stoop as low as lying whenever it comes up.
>>4370158no, one guy posting two entirely different mystery meat photos of completely different things on 4chan knows something that tim parkin, henning serger, and jim kasson do not - and he knows they all conspired together to fuck over digital by claiming you need 80mp, not 50mp, to equal the detail of competently shot low ISO 6x7 slide film. the absolute fucking horror!
>>4370158>There's plenty of evidence that proves you wrong, map spammer.I already recapped your 'evidence' above. But since you have the attention span of a goldfish, allow me to make it easier for you.- Henning Serger: some dude throwing out numbers on a forum with no evidence. Naked assertion.- Tim Parkin: some dude throwing out numbers on a blog post with no evidence. Naked assertion.- Jim Kasson: as predicted, you can't even provide a fucking link. Are you just using his name to sound more credible? Deception.- onlandscape.co.uk: hey, some photos! But film only barely won by turning to 4x5 or a microfilm.Got anything better than this shit, word spammer?>>4370161>samefagging this hardMeds>same map>"completely different things"More lies from you.>but muh names!!!No evidence, just like you.>you think you know better than MUH NAMES!!!Obviously since I've actually compared them and those people have not. They never even shot a map.Now silence yourself until you produce some evidence. The map is cheap so go buy one and shoot it on 6x7, if you have a camera. Don't cry about scanning costs, you can take photos through a microscope if you find something that you think proves your claims. If you can't produce evidence then STFU. Tired of you spamming threads like a mentally handicapped child.
>>4370158>>4370161Oh, and here's estimates from a man who actually did compare digital and film. He just happens to also be an imaging specialist for NASA deep space missions. If you're going to appeal to an authority, appeal to someone who actually is an authority and has actually done the work and has evidence to back his claims up.https://clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/
>>4370168>web 1.0 mess contradicts 3 other peopleAnd why does it contradict 3 other people? Scanning differences. Why do your tests contradict 3 other people? Scanning differences.The man's specialty is clearly analyzing the spectra of rocks, not scanning film, and it's not like he was ever an expert heidelberg tango operator nor like he was scanning with the HR MF gear of the day.That's why Henning (actual photography speicalist) did his tests with projectors, the highest end scanning gear of the 2000s was still inconsistent, expensive, and lost a lot of resolution from operator to operator and day to day.Film scanning is a tldr subject and a lot of people called films death early because they did not have the expertise or equipment to consistently scan film with more DR or resolution than a nikon d200. Today, if you're not investing around 2 grand into a film scanning rig, it's still unlikely you're going to scan film with more DR or resolution than a nikon d200.But when someone does their tests with modern mirrorless scanning gear instead of "my flextight x5 is totally 9000 DPI, it better fucking be i mortgaged my house" gear, they can get film to do better for resolution, like that 10k ppi drum scan clearly outdoes 50mp ff and might even equal 100mp mf in some situations:At ISO 25 to 100, with 8 stops of DR on the film stock itself, and maybe 250 (vision3 only).And not in the shadows.And not for contour/edge sharpness. Distinct details yes, but film does not resolve hard edged details. Without really ugly AI, it can not. This is why people keep shooting 6x7 instead of 100mp fujiblad and calling digital unnatural/sterile.Whats your problem exactly? Why do you get so angry if a shitty canon isn't the best camera ever? A shitty canon sits somewhere between 645 and high ISO 6x7, and low ISO 6x7, but also underneath the A7RIV and V, D850, Z7II, A7RIII, A7RII, and A99II. Mostly your confusion seems to stem from how perceptually small 50mp to 80mp is.
>>4370168>mfw i look around for how he arrived at his resolution figures and he's scanning 4x5 at 3000dpi, and calling that "all the detail"if you're going to scan like it's 2005 you're going to come to the same conclusion they did in 2005if you're going to scan like it's 2024 you can put a quality scan of vision 250d up against a 24mp digital camera and it will be as detailed, but with more grain and less edge sharpness.we have an anon here who carefully scans all of his 35mm with an a7rii and the actual results he gets exceed this graph significantly
Heres your 80mp medium format sensor with 14 stops of dynamic range bro.That will be $1/frame before processing. Development will be another $20 with the potential of damage or loss. Scanning will be $20+ and if you want something with the 14 stops and 80mp you paid for go buy a $8000 digital camera and do it yourself. Dust included!Also, you are limited to using this in a mamiya 7 if you want any semblance of convenience. Forget about SLRs, the vibration from the massive mirror cuts your resolution in half, or you can just not look at the scene for a second.>People argue over this endlessly as if it's the death of digital cameras if a canon 5dsR is slightly lower resolution when photographing distant swamp grass[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution25 dpiVertical Resolution25 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width990Image Height990
>>4370195>And why does it contradict 3 other people?>Scanning differences.There's nothing to contradict and there are no scanning differences because two of your people are just shit posters making naked assertions and one apparently didn't say anything on the topic since you are nolink.>The man's specialty is clearly analyzing the spectra of rocks, not scanning filmSee how you cope? Holy fuck...a NASA imaging specialist who spends his free time on photography 'hurr isn't qualified.' Your people's specialty is pulling numbers out of their asses. NASA expert wins.>That's why Henning (actual photography speicalist) did his tests with projectorsProve it. All I see are words in a forum. No scans, no photographs of the projection, nothing but words. Just like you.>and lost a lot of resolution from operator to operator and day to day.You are so full of shit it's fascinating to watch in real time. The Howtek clearly resolved grain as it should. There was no error and there's nothing below grain.>Film scanning is a tldr subjectAllow me to simplify it for you: the Howtek resolved grain. There's nothing below grain. Film lost that comparison. Want proof there's nothing below grain? Open the high-end-scans.de HXY and drum scans of the VW Bug. Detail is the same, only the file dimensions and grain intensity are different. Why? Because there's nothing below grain, the HXY scan just did a better job resolving all the grain.>Today, if you're not investing around 2 grand into a film scanning rigEven if you do you're not beating a Howtek and certainly not beating HXY.>But when someone does their tests with modern mirrorless scanning gear instead of "my flextight x5"Oh look, another deception from you. The map is Howtek drum. The portrait is Noritsu. The rest are HXY. A home camera scanning rig can probably beat the Noritsu, but since the Noritsu was hitting grain, all you will see is better resolved grain. The Imacon was 35mm vs 7D, posted to jog your memory.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1978Image Height1033Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution8000 dpiVertical Resolution8000 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2010:04:18 14:59:36Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1978Image Height1033
>>4370215BASED FILM???
>>4370218>Retard repeats himselfI skipped over your entire post but the last line because its a gem of retardation>A home camera scanning rig can probably beat the Noritsu, but since the Noritsu was hitting grain, all you will see is better resolved grain.You are telling me that the 20mp lab scans I get from a noritsu when I mail medium format into hipsterfixiecoffelatte filmlab are the peak of film then because you can see scanner noise i mean grain?L.And then skipped up because I saw colored text>Open the high-end-scans.de HXY and drum scans of the VW Bug. Detail is the sameNo, it's not, a lot of fine texturing on the tire disappears despite "resolving grain". You're actually blind. Holy shit.>Today, if you're not investing around 2 grand into a film scanning rig>even if you do you're not beating a Howtek and certainly not beating HXY.Uh yeah, you definitely are. You have no idea how much better cameras are than drums. Specifically because they can stitch macro shots. It's just one step under scanning your film with a microscope. You can stitch 4 pixel shift slices and shit all over a drum in 2 minutes.
>>4370195>10k ppi drum scanNot a drum scanner, do you even pay attention? Or are you just lying again? And film clearly lost those two comparisons as well. If you disagree, circle in red for us.>crickets>At ISO 25 to 100, with 8 stops of DR on the film stock itself, and maybe 250 (vision3 only).The fuck are you babbling about? Vision 3 films are 13-14 stops DR. Oh that's right, you can't read a characteristic curve either.>This is why people keep shooting 6x7 instead of 100mp fujiblad and calling digital unnatural/sterile.What people? Where? How many? Link their work.>crickets>Whats your problem exactly? - You stomp your feet and demand everyone bow to your ignorant opinion without evidence.- You repeatedly lie and engage in various deceptions and sleights of hand.- You claim film is better while simultaneously spewing excuses why it's not.- You treat forum shit posters with zero evidence as 'specialists' then mock an actual expert working for fucking NASA.- You refuse to answer questions, shitpost like a 12yo, then run to shit up other threads.- You samefag.- You are literally nophoto, noscan, noevidence. Hell, you can't even prove you own a camera.- Did I mention the part where you run away like a child and shit up irrelevant threads?
>>4370225>The fuck are you babbling about? Vision 3 films are 13-14 stops DR. Oh that's right, you can't read a characteristic curve either.[at iso 25 to 800 with 8 stops]or maybe [iso 250] [not with 8 stops, 14]>The hysterical bullet points return!Tim Parkin was right. You are hilariously wrong. I encourage you to choose between one of these two:Shut the fuck up.Test your cameras on identical subjects with identical light and scan with a decent method from this century, ie: a7rii+70mm art macro and stitch for more resolution.
>>4370203>we have an anon here who carefully scans all of his 35mm with an a7rii and the actual results he gets exceed this graph significantlyWhere? Let's see it. Is there a comparison against a 24mp camera on the same or a similar target?>>4370215>nophotos80mp. Sure kid.>>4370223>>Retard repeats himselfThat's you. You've contributed nothing to the conversation across multiple threads. Just the same lies, name dropping, and nophotos.>noooo it's scanner noise!It's grain that's pixelated because the Noritsu can't cleanly resolve grain like the Howtek can. Now are you going to tell me that film resolves details smaller than film grain? Please claim that so I can add to your retard list.>No, it's not, a lot of fine texturing on the tire disappears despite "resolving grain". You're actually blind. Holy shit.Put together a comparison and circle it in red.>Uh yeah, you're definitely going to beat stitched shots from a 150mp phase one of fluid mounted materials in a reprographic rigYou can't even align your home setup to within the tolerances necessary to do that.>You have no idea how much better cameras are than drumsFirst, you don't even know what scanner is being discussed. Second, picrel is camera scan vs drum from:https://www.norwichcamera.com/blogs/wsogmm/all-about-those-scansYou can get closer with a higher res DSLR/MILC, but you're chasing the drum scan, not ahead of it. Here are more tests:https://petapixel.com/2020/01/29/film-scanning-shootout-drum-vs-fluid-mount-vs-dslr/He found drum was best for slides, wet mount high end flatbed for negs. Oops. (And I'm a fan of DSLR/MILC scanning.)Once again, nophotos vs photos, photos win.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width1514Image Height862
>>4370226>>The fuck are you babbling about? Vision 3 films are 13-14 stops DR. Oh that's right, you can't read a characteristic curve either.>[at iso 25 to 800 with 8 stops]I still don't know what the fuck you're babbling about.>>The hysterical bullet points return!Yet you can't address even one.>Tim Parkin was right.Tim Parkin had no evidence, no tests in that blog post. You say he's right because you want to believe and you want to "win", not because of convincing evidence or any evidence.>You are hilariously wrongAnd yet you can't prove it. The eternal nophoto.>Shut the fuck up.No, you shut the fuck up until you can post evidence.>Test your cameras on identical subjects Already done on literally identical subjects and on subjects similar enough for comparison. Now tell me: what is the MP equivalence of Adox CMS 20 II in 35mm format? You know so much about this and cite so many 'experts' surely you can give me a number.
>>4370251>Camera scanning cant come close to a drum because>Nick carver used a 20mp canon at a funky angle>A nikon d800 with an enlarger lensive seen that test already, carver has a point about whats easier to color correct but lmao, using a d810, 6d, whatever is not "doing it right" its working with what you have. it's not even beating a v700, dpi number is 2low.you really need to spend on a decent pixel shift body and pay attention to those MTF charts if you want to get to where a very good drum scan would get. you can find better tests everywhere. please work on your competence.GFX50SII vs Heidelberghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1thY_Az14bA&t=700sGFX100S meets 35mmhttps://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/18if5vm/trying_400_megapixels_scans_on_several_film/?rdt=39567That's 35mm!the question is do you want to? most peoples film is slightly blurred from the old ass lens, the mirror slapping around, hand shake, a little motion blur, or slight focus misses. most peoples film is missing its best possible resolution from underexposure. no one ever noticed, they just thought maybe film sucks. maybe, its easy to suck with film.
>>4370253>Tim Parkin had no evidence, no tests in that blog post>which is almost entirely tests, extensive descriptions of the tests, and evidence from the testsDidn't read the rest of your retarded postDo you know you are wrong? Are you trying to have an argument for the sake of it?
>>4370256he does and he isa reasonable actor would not spam the same few “comparisons” so many times in one thread
>>4370255>>Camera scanning cant come closeStraw man.>claims X is true>sees two tests showing X is not true>"nooo i'll make fun of the tests"This is a photo forum which also allows URLs, so feel free to post your supporting evidence at any time.>ive seen that test alreadyHow about we see YOUR tests?>muh pixel shift!Hardly does shit.>GFX50SII vs Heidelberg>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1thY_Az14bA&t=700sHOLY SHIT HE POSTED A LINK! WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING IN THIS WORLD???But in this video the tester concludes that there was no difference. Good for the GFX, but also disproves your claim that camera scanning rigs are better.AND A SECOND LINK JESUS CHRIST!!!>That's 35mm!And about what I would expect from a drum except for maybe less prominent grain. Also less than I would expect from high res FF and certainly less than HXY (which hits 24,110 ppi on 35mm), though it doesn't matter much in the case of HXY because at that point you're really just resolving more/better grain.Thank you for actually posting some worthwhile links.
>>4370264nice impenetrable wall of meltdown how do you expect anyone to engage with you seriously>>4370255>35mm = 400mpits over for digislugs
>>4370256>>Tim Parkin had no evidence, no tests in that blog post>>which is almost entirely tests, extensive descriptions of the tests, and evidence from the testsHere we go with the lying again. He had NO tests of his own and posted NO evidence. He made reference to other people's tests but just briefly summarized them. And did you even read those summaries?- Ken Rockwell put 35mm at 25mp.- Clarkvision put 35mm at 15mp.- He estimated from the two of them that 4x5 must be 199mp.- But then noted a test where 39mp came very close to 4x5, proving his estimate wrong.Then he went on to perpetuate Bayer myths so he could cook film's numbers higher even though the evidence he referenced showed that his Bayer theory couldn't possibly be correct. Just like you, he made the mistake of putting theory above evidence when it's the other way around.>Didn't read the rest of your retarded postOf course you didn't. You hate when I point out that you are a nophoto.>>4370262And a samefag.
>>4370265Nice cope post, how do you expect anyone to engage with you seriously when you can't address points, answer questions, or post photos?
>>4370267>dunning kruger: the post35mm = 400mp cope harder digislugs
>>4370270in fact, adox claims on his page 500mp for their 35m cms20ii, but they say this is 800lp/mm, no lens resolve that, in fact many lenses resolve like 50lp/mm, also that film type is b&w and very high contrast (very low DR)
>>4370297Adox CMS 20 II = 500mp in the real world. We standing by that claim?
>>4370297It's actually fuji c200 that's 400mpAdox CMS 20 is over a gigapixel
>>4370319Ohhh...a gigapixel? Is that right?
>>4370413Giga pixel deez nuts
>>4370316Should I link my 50mb jpg 4x5 macro shot using cms20? My epson v800 + jpg compression captured about 20% of its total resolution.
>>4370424So you're going to show one resolution, then claim another based on...what?I have a better idea. Let's play with Adox CMS 20 II in 35mm on a scanner that can resolve 778mp...
On the Adox website it is claimed that CMS 20 II has 500mp equivalent resolution and that 90" prints are essentially grainless. Confusingly they also claim up to 800 lp/mm which would equal 2.2 gigapixels.In Henning Serger's forum posts he claims (without evidence) that CMS 20 II can resolve 240-260 lp/mm in the real world, which is about 234mp equivalent. He later goes on to claim (without evidence) that a drum scanner cannot recover all of the detail. high-end-scans.de has a publicly available sample of Adox CMS 20 II scanned at 24,110 ppi.https://www.high-end-scans.de/en/samples/dv09_adox_cms20_30/If the film could out resolve the scanner this would be equivalent to 778mp. So there is no question that whatever Serger's experience with a drum scanner (which one?), the HXY scanner does not limit film's resolution here. Whether Adox CMS 20 II can resolve 234mp or 500mp, the HXY scanner can resolve all of it. If CMS 20 II's resolution is actually 2.2gp, then we should see over 700mp of detail in the scan.So does Adox CMS 20 II really have 234mp of detail? 500mp? More? Let's take a look and find out by comparing to another real world image, this time in digital.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width2140Image Height1438
>>4370447DPReview.com has a 50mp 5DsR cityscape RAW we can use for comparison. Unfortunately the foreground buildings are severely underexposed in order to test dynamic range. The foreground had to be pushed ~3ev for this comparison. Because the 5DsR uses Canon's older ADC architecture a push like this produces more noise than a modern camera would produce, which compromises resolving power. Still, it's the best we have with publicly available RAWs for this camera.To produce this comparison the 5DsR was opened in ACR. Foreground detail was pushed ~3 stops. To try and compensate for the underexposure, sharpening and NR were used in ACR, but there's no way to restore the full resolution that would be there if the foreground had been exposed correctly. In the foreground this RAW is closer to maybe 40mp than 50mp due to the noise and the need to apply NR. After conversion the image was scaled in a single step to the scan width of 34,513 pixels using Preserve Details 2.0. No other processing was done in PS or any other program. 2,500 pixel square crops were then taken from the 5DsR image and the CMS 20 II scan. On a 216 ppi 4k monitor the crops are equivalent to viewing a 160" print.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width2138Image Height1428
>>4370447>>4370449Well, well, well...what do we see?- Adox's claim of grainless 90" prints is nonsense. Even if you view at 50%, CMS 20 II has horrendous grain.- In the real world 35mm CMS 20 II does not have 778mp of resolution. Nor 500mp of resolution. Nor 234mp of resolution. Not even close. It's roughly equivalent to a severely underexposed 5DsR RAW. Which puts it at somewhere between 40-50mp.- Even if we were to give the benefit of the doubt to CMS 20 II, and assume that with a more finely detailed subject and better lens it would edge out a properly exposed 5DsR, at best CMS 20 II would have 50-60mp in the real world. It is no where near 234mp, much less 500mp or 2.2gp. At those numbers it would cleanly resolve the distant trees in the scan, which are mush in reality. And to achieve those numbers, grain would have to be exponentially lower. No, at best it's ~60mp and likely not even that. A 100mp GFX would demolish this film in 35mm format.- This is still impressive for CMS 20 II. In 6x9 it would challenge a 150mp Phase One. No regular film can come close to this microfilm. On resolution, this is as good as it gets for film by a very, very wide margin.Once again we see that filmfags and film company marketing departments grossly overstate film's resolution using irrelevant high contrast line chart tests and back-of-the-napkin calculations that have no basis in the real world. As for Henning Serger: he is not a 'specialist' whose word can be taken without evidence as his numbers here have been proven ridiculously false. I openly question whether or not he ever performed the tests he claims to have performed in his forum posts, because nothing could explain a 60mp max film producing 234mp for him.Cue the resident filmfag with his excuses, but no photos. If film was so much better you would think he could find something other than words, forum shit posting, to prove it. But he hasn't posted anything because he can't.
>>4370453Another pair of crops. Note that the Adox image trees are mush. They would be finely resolved at 234mp, and the 5DsR...especially underexposed...would have no chance if CMS 20 II possessed such resolution in the real world.
>>4364489Has to be Sony.>Ugly, uncomfortable, badly designed cameras, but zomg 491 megapickles I’m just going to reduce down to 1200x800 to post online to try in vain to impress other tards with no lives who will look at the images on their cellphones shrunk again to about 640x480.Yay.
>>4370455The film is very very clearly outresolving the lens. Try again.
>>4370461>nooooo it's the lens!!!Always an excuse with these faggots, but never a photo comparison. It is the horrendous (at this scale) film grain, and not the lens, which limits Adox CMS 20 II in this scan. Which means it's not going to do much better even with something like a Sigma 135 f/1.8 ART.Cue more excuses from the filmfag...
Maybe I am mistaken, but isn't this also a tree? This brown smudge that is more mushy than literal mush?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width394Image Height519
>>4370463Bud, the grain you seem to hate more than your own life is significantly finer than the digital mushy mush. It's obvious and clear to all observers.
>>4370464Jesus Christ the point flew right over your head.- People claim 234mp, 500mp, 1gb, and 2.2gb for 35mm Adox CMS 20 II.- If it was even 234mp then the trees in that scan would be well resolved.- Instead they are mush, reinforcing what is already obvious: CMS 20 II does not have any where near 234mp.- No one ever claimed a 5DsR could resolve 234mp, so if there is a tree of similar scale somewhere in the RAW, it will be mush too.I'll give the benefit of the doubt to CMS 20 II and say that with a Zeiss or ART prime it's likely 50-60mp in 35mm format. Based on the grain, the trees, other fine details turned to mush, it cannot be more. Grain is clearly the limiting factor, a better lens would only squeeze out a tiny bit more.>>4370466>adox is mushy>"hurr digital is mushy"They're equally soft at this extreme scale. Neither can support 160" prints, that's MF digital / large format film territory.Shhh now...no more copes. CMS 20 II is as good as it gets for film. Film just simply doesn't have the resolution filmfags claim it does. It never did.
>>4370468Not convinced in the slightest. The grain is roughly 4 times smaller than the inferior digishart. Do you think there's a 35mm lens that resolves 200mp+? If you knew what you were talking about you could very clearly see what is the limiting factor in your examples.
>>4370469>not convinced!Of course not. You're married to the Ken Rockwell troll post tier idea that film has glorious gigapixels of resolution. And just like a religious fanatic or a m43fag, nothing will shake your faith. No matter what you see, you will always invent a cope to prevent cognitive dissonance and protect your cherished beliefs. In this respect you are no different from a flat Earther.>but muh grain looks tiny and sharp!>it's really 200mp!!!The smallest real world details require many grains to image. Go count the number of grains required to image a window frame in the scan. Even if we compare to a single pixel, you need many grains to match the pixel in any situation other than monochromatic B&W line art. A pixel in a modern sensor can represent any one of 16k tones. You would need dozens of individual grains, of varying size and sensitivity, to dither and represent every one of those tones. This is why tonality varies dramatically with film size, but not that much with digital sensor size.And you've stumbled upon the other key problem with line chart tests, besides amplified contrast. They are monochromatic line art. In that case and that case only, you can resolve a line with just a few grains side-by-side. Due to the random nature of film grain an average grain width of 1 will not do it. But with an average grain width of, say, 4-6 you can produce a soft but straight line.That's not true of any detail in the real world outside of man made monochromatic B&W signage. Now you know why line chart tests grossly overstate film's real world resolving power. That is if you can get over your cognitive dissonance and accept it.In the real world Adox CMS 20 II is, at best, equivalent to 60mp.>Do you think there's a 35mm lens that resolves 200mp+?Quite a few actually. Not at MTF50, but definitely at MTF20.
>>4370474Okay, based on what you have said I give 35mm adox cms20 with a proper lens at least 180mp. Sorry! Maybe if your examples were just a little better you would be more convincing.60mp 35mm means 800mp 4x5 on your own word. :) Film is still incredibly superior to sad and poor digital.
>>4370469>Do you think there's a 35mm lens that resolves 200mp+?240 lp/mm is required for 200mp in 35mm format. Here's a list of some of the lenses which can hit that number at MTF20 or MTF10, stopped down a bit of course. There are more out there, they didn't test everything.https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/The usual candidates appear such as the Sigma 135 f/1.8 ART, the Sony 135 f/1.8 GM, Zeiss, etc. Also note that there are extremely expensive diffraction limited lenses for MF which no one ever seems to know exist because only millionaires can afford them.Most cannot, but a surprising number can. And I have to give some benefit of the doubt to CMS 20 II here and say it's 50-60mp and not 40-50mp because of the lens. But you grossly overestimate the impact of the lens. It is painfully obvious that grain is the problem. To hit 234mp that grain would have to be 1/10th the size. Again, real world details are not resolved with 1-2 grains. Even monochromatic line art isn't.No it's not the scanner or the lens or the lunar phase. The film just doesn't have that kind of resolution in the real world, no matter what some guy in a forum claimed.
>>4370476>Okay, based on what you have said I give 35mm adox cms20 with a proper lens at least 180mpOf course you do. Just like flat Earthers look at high altitude shots of the curve and see flat. I'm sorry you are a slave to cognitive dissonance.>Sorry! Maybe if your examples were just a little better you would be more convincing.Maybe if you had any examples...>60mp 35mm means 800mp 4x5 on your own wordAnd yet 4x5 barely exceeds 80mp. Huh. Almost like I know what I'm talking about...>but muh math!!!>i pulled out a napkin and i did muh math!!!If you had any real world experience with all of these formats you would know that there are losses as you increase film's size. MF film will never be held as flat as 35mm, and LF film will never be held as flat as MF. There are also lens issues as its harder to manufacture a lens as format size increases. (One thing m43fags get right, only they overestimate its impact between m43 and FF, as well as ignore market forces which means many of the sharpest lenses are FF despite the increased manufacturing difficulty.)Oh, and I love the sleight of hand that "film = this" based on a microfilm that out resolves every other film by a factor of 4. Velvia 50 hits ~15mp in 35mm format. Tim Parkin put 4x5 at 200mp based on Velvia's real world resolution in 35mm, but picrel shows such estimates cannot possibly be true.>nooo it's Portra!!!Go look at the data sheet MTF graphs again. Velvia beats Portra, but not by an amount that would make 200mp possible for Velvia.Sorry, 4x5 never hits 800mp equivalent, in fact it's typically out performed by a 150mp Phase One. Real world vs theories. Now if you put CMS 20 II in 4x5 (do they even still make it?) it would beat that Phase One. But it would never hit 800mp or even get close.Real world vs theories.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height832Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4370483Damn bro. Gotta walk back on your own words. SAD! Looks like you have lost yet again. Better luck next time, nophoto.My advice? Try and minimize the insane levels of projection. Anyone who isn't as emotionally invested as you are in your losing battle sees that, and easily! A roll of film is flatter than a sheet on what could be a precision film holder! LMFAO. You really are just a troll with zero life experience.
>>4370486I didn't walk back anything, you're just reverting to acting like a child having had your BS exposed again. Next we will see you posting 12yo taunts.>nophotos>can't even prove camera ownership>"hurr you have zero life experience"Oh the irony...
>writes an entire essayImagine being this much of a loser lol
>>4370511Yep, 12yo taunts. As predicted.
>>4370511The irony of derailing a thread about the most obnoxious shills to then inadvertently prove films superiority is entirely lost on him. Just lmao.
Just shoot microfilm retards
Lotta cope for someone who denies reality>TIM PARKIN DIDNT DO TESTSAnd yet you keep using and misrepresenting the diffraction softened 4x5 porta 400 he did6x7 provia+howtek drum = 80mp. scientifically proven fact.
>>4370483Diffraction softened and yet digital turned the orange details green. How do you plan to un green them? Mask each blade of grass?
>>4370572The irony of your samefagging is lost on you. You have to be 18 or older to post here.
>>4370718Angry, seething even. Another big victory.There's two more people laughing at you now.
>>4370576Howtek drums must be shit. You can get 400mp out of a scan of fuji 200. No wonder they're out of business now.
>>4370576>>4370577>samefagging this hardParkin didn't do any tests in that blog post. He has submitted material to onlandscape (assuming same guy) but in doing so proved himself a dishonest tester with shit like nearest neighbor. 'muh diffraction' just proves how ignorant you are about all of this, thinking 4x5 diffracts at the same f-stop as m43.Always an excuse, always a cope, NEVER a photo.50mp > 6x9/6x7 > 36mp and that is now a well proven fact. Even Tim Parkin would agree, someone would just have to explain scaling to him first. You have to go to microfilm or 4x5 for film to 'win' although nobody cares because nobody shoots film for 'muh line chart resolution', only autistic nocameras believe anyone would. If you ever buy a camera, please go m43, that is the right format for you. You can shoot rocks and shit up threads spreading the word of m43 and telling everyone how it's really better than FF. Be a nice break from you shitting up threads with your film crusade when you have nofilmphotos and nofilmcameras.
>>4370731>Angry, insecure, and aggressive>NophotoOpinion discarded
>>4370724>>4370727>"nooo i'm really two people i swear">12yo taunt mode engagedAngry, seething, reduced to samefagging and childish taunts. Another big victory indeed. Will you shut up now? At the very least don't run away crying from a thread, refusing to engage like an adult or answer any questions, only to start this shit in yet another thread. /p/ has found its answer and the most insufferable shill is you.
>>4370735>projecting>still nophoto>schizophrenic Another victory indeed.
>>4370731>Parkin didn't do any testsUh, yes, he did.>Dishonest, nearest neighborYou made this up like you made up "Tim Parkin is a lying bitch, in the next paragraph he says a 5dii has the same resolution as 4x5. What it is it? IF U HAS TO LIE UR POINT IS NOT VALID"And yet you liedThe evidence is in front of you. 35mm film is 400mp.https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/18if5vm/trying_400_megapixels_scans_on_several_film/?rdt=56860Also, no reason to buy canon since sony has the tamron 50-400. Enjoy your r5ii forced nr to hide aps-c dr from dxomark lolololol
>>4370733Your turn to post a photo faggot. I don't think you've ever posted even one, not unless you admit to samefagging, then maybe one belonged to you out of multiple threads and hundreds of shit posts. 5Ds cropped 2x.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.2Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3424Image Height2739Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:09:22 22:22:26Exposure Time1/3200 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length255.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2400Image Height1920RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>Digital be like: Is that detail 1% too fine? *pukes rainbows*>Film: I still got some grains left over
>>4370738Women are so repulsive
>>4370738You have already lost and posting a little tech demo tier snapshit does nothing for you, nophoto. I have many images posted in various threads. You are the one samefagging, fact.
>>4370731>he scaled it with nearest neighbor!>where did i get that? i made it up. no way could my nikon coolscan tests be wrong so i explained the problem away. no, i cant show you where he said that. i tested film on a nikon coolscan and it fucking lost so tim parkin is clearly a lying bitch hiding his scaling algorithm trickery>and so are these other guys who also proved me wronglmao>>4370483>Why are the results from 4x5 not performing as well as indicated by the slide comparison? Well in the real world we had to stop down from our optimum aperture of f/11⅔ to about f/22. This reduced the max resolution of the 4x5 shots. The IQ180 needed stopping down too but that just reduced the contrast at the sensors maximum resolution and with a bit of sharpening it didn’t really do much damage.
>>4370742>>4370739>>4370738>>4370737Film remains victorious in all meaningful metrics.
>>4370737>>Parkin didn't do any tests>Uh, yes, he did.Uh, no he didn't in his personal blog post. He only cited others.>can literally see the scaling algorithm effects in the sample photos>"You made this up"kek>like you made up "Tim Parkin is a lying bitch, in the next paragraph he says a 5dii has the same resolution as 4x5."Link the post where I said that. Oh that's right, you can't because I never said that. Again you have to resort to deception, straw men, authority appeals, etc. because you are nophoto and noevidence. The only actual evidence...not forum shit posting, evidence...you've cited actually works against you since Provia 6x7 lost and Portra 4x5 only squeaked by.>What it is it? IF U HAS TO LIE UR POINT IS NOT VALIDGlad you're learning, now stop being a lying and exaggerating straw man bitch.>reddit thumbnail = 400mpYou have to go back.>Also, no reason to buy canon since sony has the tamron 50-400Soft shit compared to the 100-400L and 100-500L. I can reliably crop 2x with the 5Ds+100-400L shot wide open and still do 16x20. I couldn't do that with the Tamron, not even stopped down. The Tamron in this case is a good consumer lens, nothing more.Both Wide Open and the L is fasterhttps://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1632&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0Wide Open L vs Optimum Aperture Tamronhttps://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1632&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3inb4 copes
>>4370739>>4370741>>4370742>>4370745Holy fucking mental breakdown samefagging. Post a photo or STFU already.
>>4370741>I have many images posted in various threads.Link one faggot.
>>4370753>>4370754>nophoto schizo>samefaggingOpinion discarded
>provia 6x7 lostIQ180: Rainbow moire even below 66x7: Can still tell its black and white lines up to 6A 50mp camera is not coping its way around thisYou need a 100mp medium format to outdo an 80mp medium format
>>4370760Film is so good that digislugs will say "uh, actually yellow and purple lines are normal chud" Saying finer detail doesnt count because low edge contrast and visible grain (at any scanning resolution) is already their thing, why not be even more delusional[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeLinoHellCamera ModelTANGOCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2148Image Height4555Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2014:11:12 10:08:51Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width442Image Height883
>>4370766>>4370760Please see>>4370745
>>4370754>"no i post photos all the time">can't link onelmfao>>4370760>mush at 6>"no i still see a line!"See, this is why you can't trust some dude on a forum when he says he projected film and counted over 9,000 lp/mm. Sorry, Provia 6x7 ain't gonna beat 45-50mp FF in the real world. Real World Shooting: 50mp FF > 6x9 Velvia 50 > 6x7 Provia 100F, scientifically proven.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2370Image Height1185Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4370766>look at how clear the lines are at 6 film won!!!LMFAO, and I didn't even have to use nearest neighbor, holy shit.
>>4370773Extreme cope posting now. The film's superiority is melting his mind!
>Note: Real world shooting means scanning with gear from 2008But it doesn't because scanners from 2008 still cost $10k for some reason and a gfx100+lens is like $2500
>>4370760>6x7: Can still tell its black and white lines up to 6>can still tell>up to 6ROTFLMAO
>>4370781>>4370778>Accuses tim parkin of blurring the digital with the wrong scaling algorithm>Then performs his own lieYikesYou can also just look at the numbers, using CMS20 as a reference, to see how shit digital is. 6, 8, and 10 the characters are shaking into nonexistent on the iq180 but clearly defined on 6x7 provia. Which is to be expected, because slow 6x7 film is a real 80mp, not a bayer 80mp which is more like 40mp if the detail is just wrong for the array.
>>4370780>HXY is from 2008HXY scanner didn't exist in 2008 and is the highest resolving scanner in the world. And yet, a drum from 2008 still compares favorably to it. Sorry, a GFX isn't going to beat HXY not even with pixel shift shit, and at best can pull even with a drum on 80yo B&W film. Simple facts.
I love that we can enjoy such mentally ill people that an expensive and impractical medium that requires over $2000 of scanning gear or an enlarger that isnt even made anymore to reach its peak resolution beating a 2013 dslrnosaur by ~30mp at max zoom causes someone to develop schizophrenia>tim parkin didnt do tests>tim parkin lied>4x5 = 5dii>secret scaling algorithms>kasson, serger, and parkin are conspiring to fuck over the canon 5ds>if you can see grain on a scan there is no more detail>10k ppi hxy scan reveals textured lines on tire sidewall>IGNORE THAT ITS GRAINY AND FUZZY DOESNT COUNT
>>4370786A GFX is going to beat an hxy with pixel shift, by stitching. An HXY which already beat your 50mp shitter and proved that not only is 6x9 80mp on a howtek drum, it is much higher resolution when scanned more thoroughly, by revealing additional tire texture, super low contrast black and gray lines on a black and gray surface, at 10k ppi.And YOUR samples that "prove film lost" are scanned on 8 bit ccd lab crap that looks worse than scans with an a7r2+70mm art macro (and maybe a poorly operated drum at a lower quality setting)
>>4370784>>Accuses tim parkin of blurring the digital with the wrong scaling algorithm>>Then performs his own lieAgain you have to lie, I used Preserve Details 2.0 and Provia 6x7 didn't resolve shit at 6 in that test. Why would you lie about an image everyone can look at? There are no line pairs by 6, only mush.https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/image12.jpg>the numbers are clearly defined on provia>"clearly defined"LMFAO
>>4370795Yes, much better than the 80mp iq180.By every objective metric, according to every credible source, film has significantly exceeded the image quality of a canon 5ds by every single worthwhile metric.You have never been able to refute the central point and instead repeatedly spam the same awful, 2008 tier scans and make up lies like "5dii performed like 4x5" and "secret scaling algorithms". Not one single time have you actually refuted any of the material that disproves you (dramatically). You just lie or cry about something irrelevant and spam the same shitty, invalid, apples to pineapples comparisons again while writing impenetrable bullet point arguments addressing 5 different people at once.You are, without parallel, the stupidest and most delusional person on /p/. I am no longer addressing you.I strongly recommend that no one, no matter how good their argument is, engage with this person further unless you are just shitposting at him to watch him seethe. He is definitive proof that "digital photography" has the most obnoxious fanboys. They can't even accept that film exceeds a shitty canon DSLR, even if it still loses to a fuji GFX, even when it only does so with an insane amount of expense and effort put into scanning (so much it's not even professionally feasible for anyone who works with the most modest volumes, due to hilariously non-competitive turnaround times) - and only at insanely low ISO settings, with MF rangefinders and LF view cameras! Such a conditional, impractical win and digislugs STILL cant accept it.Just call him a faggot and move on. The science is very settled, in favor of film being better and digital being more practical.
>>4370787I love that we can enjoy such mentally ill people that a 2015 DSLRnosaur beating 6x9 Velvia 50 in the real world causes someone to mentally revert to a 12yo and lie their ass off in a sorry attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance.>noooo tim parkin totally used a good scaling algorithm, good algorithms always pixelate>35mm = 400mp, i saw it on reddit>serger totally proved film's resolution in a forum shit post with no evidence to back the numbers pulled from his ass>film can totally resolve details smaller than its core imaging element, grain. what does it resolve them with? idk but it can!!!>nooo that comparison's not valid, it's the scanner even though the scanner resolved grain>nooo that comparison is not valid muh diffraction at f/6.7 equivalent aperture>nooo that comparison's not valid, you used uh like super ai scaling or something>oh you didn't? well then a car drove by during scanning we can't trust it>nooo film won that comparison but here's a dozen excuses for why it lost>what do you mean post my own evidence?>what do you mean post a photo?>dude film totally won>right dude film won>i know film won dude>WHAT DO YOU MEAN I SAMEFAG?
>>4370789>A GFX is going to beat an hxy with pixel shiftLiterally stopped reading right there. Be quiet you noevidence nophoto. Go back to r/dumbass and be a retarded schizo there.
>>4370800Fuji 200 in 35mm + a helios + fuji gfx100 = 400mp image sharply resolved with clearer detail than a d850
>"The scanner resolved grain" (digital noise) there is no more detail to be seen retard!So we can all agree that this spot on the tire is in fact just a solid gray strip right? (note: 100% crop from a 22813x15675 image)You can see grain. There's no more detail, right? This 6x9 slide is a mere 357mp.
>>4370799>schizo wall of cope and lies intensifiesI didn't even read most of that inane shit. I'm done with your lying nophoto schizo ass. You're now so far out of reality that I'm worried you're having a mental breakdown and might self harm, claiming I said shit I never said and foaming at the mouth about 'old scanners'. Hint: the results are literally the same across Noritsu, Howtek, and fucking HXY, proving it's not the scanner.There are now 6 separate comparisons across films, formats, and scanners while you have ZERO comparisons to offer and nophotos to post. Science is observation and you have none. The science is very settled and in the real world, apart from microfilms:50mp FF > 6x9/6x7 > 36mp FF > 645Now fuck off, nophoto faggot.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4370807Oh shit! More detail! Look at all these ultra low contrast lines suddenly appearing.So much for drum scanning. I guess henning serger was right, since you know, he tested film with high end projectors instead of error prone and often insufficient scanning tech.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)Focal Length (35mm Equiv)511 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution3937 dpcmVertical Resolution3937 dpcmImage Created2021:06:20 02:10:16Focal Length511.02 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1925
>>4370808Nice example of film having finer detail can we get less cope and more concessions now?
>>4370805>r/thumbnail was totally clearerLOL, get the original scan file from him so I can show you how it really compares. Go ahead, I dare you to.
>>4370811We already know that based on actual science grade testing from someone who is not a coping retard who is desperate to claim his cannot pos r is better than the latest snoy that 6x7 is "at least" 80mp with more pedestrian scanning techFor the talented few who can work an enlarger or an actual high end scanning system it's several hundred mp, but i digress, who has time for that?>but if i upscale my 5ds...You get fewer details and you're just enlarging the bayer mess. Lots of edge contrast, not a lot of grain, also not a lot of detail.
>>4370809Again with the straw men. I didn't say a drum was equal to HXY, I said it compared favorably to HXY. I specifically started using HXY sample scans because they are the best in the world, and explicitly said that. And yet we still see the same result: 50mp > 6x9If you have to lie, deceive, and appeal to straw men then your confidence that 'film won' must really be shit. Deep down you know it's losing. BTW, the 5Ds resolved similar lines in the Corvette tire logo. Shot on a zoom. At f/2.8. Edge of frame.>serger saidSerger pulled numbers out of his ass and obviously never really tested projected film. Remember that HXY has been tested to 500 lp/mm which means it could easily resolve 260 lp/mm. But CMS 20 II didn't have 260 lp/mm, did it? Serger was just shit posting which is why he had zero evidence, like you. Get over it already.>>4370810Circle the finer detail in red.>cricketsThis is only the 100th time I've asked you to do a simple thing to prove your claim. You don't because even you don't believe film had finer detail.
>>4370812>schizo cope intensifiesShow us the 'actual science' which for a photography resolution debate would require actual photos.>inb4 nophotos6 separate observations confirm that in the real world 50mp FF > 6x9. The science is settled. Why do you care? You obviously do not own a camera much less a 6x9 MF kit, and you shoot no photos. For you a phone is fine.
>>4370816By every objective metric, according to every credible source, film has significantly exceeded the image quality of a canon 5ds by every single worthwhile metric.>Show me the proofI did>But my 6 comparisonsYou suck as much at scanning as you do at shooting.
>>4370820>serger drunk posting on a forum>"according to every credible source"LMFAO>never posts proof>"but i showed you the proof"Provia 6x7 losing to an IQ180 on a line chart test, which is the best possible test for film, hardly proves your claims about shooting in the real world. For the 100th time, do you have any actual evidence, or just the same tired bullshit?>crickets5Ds: 66x9: 0>You suck as much at scanning I didn't scan them. Are you now going to claim that high-end-scans.de sucks at scanning? Where are your scans?>as you do at shooting.Big words for a nophoto.
>>4370808>settled science>nophoto>angryBros film won.
>>4370825>Provia 6x7 is resolving lines when the iq180 is already showing moire, indicating higher resolution>10k ppi scan proves film has more than 80mp in the tank and provia was kneecapped by the drum scannerI see, so you agree. Film is much higher resolution than digital, if you're willing to tolerate more grain, less edge contrast, and an extremely impractical workflow, but for most people throwing it under the lens if a gfx can scan it a gfx can shoot it so 100mp fuji essentially outmoded film for professional use.I'm glad we both agree that digital won the war overall, after years of missing the mark with shitty 42-50mp DSLRs that were only a little better than 35mm and poorly done scans.
>>4370828>>Provia 6x7 is resolving lines when the iq180 is already showing moireYou're lying again. Provia is mush when the IQ180 is aliasing. If you have to lie...>>10k ppi scan proves film has <50mp real worldfify>drum scanner resolves >95% of the detail of HXY>"nooo film lost because of the drum scanner"cope>asked for evidence of claims>posts none, againI accept your concession. I'm glad that we agree that real world 50mp FF > 6x9 slow speed slide film. It's amazing how far technology has come, isn't it?
>>4370832>You're right, I can't believe i didn't see it earlier. Film really resolves fine textures a lot better than most digital cameras.I know, I agree! Film is insanely better if you put in the work. In the "real world" most people aren't even going to scan a MF frame as 20mp, but if you want it, and stick to stocks like ektar 100, ektachrome e100, tech pan, and cms 20 and a good lens and better technique, you can outdo any sensible digital camera.But its nice to have a digital camera anyways because producing 50mp instantly has more business value than producing 800mp next week.
>>4370839Imagine having such a complete and total mental breakdown that you start unironically having an imaginary conversation with your opponent. Holy shit, please don't self harm, I would actually feel guilty about that.
>>4370843>Imagine being able to afford to get the most out of film. I'm so broke I can't do better than a canon 5ds r.Yikes man, that's rough. We can't all shoot gigapixel frames with a mamiya 7.
>>4370844>nophoto acts lie he owns a cameraIs the Mamiya 7 in the room with you right now?
it is a little weird that there are no comparisons from the film guy, is it not?
>>4370854he linked you a lot of scientifically valid high quality proof that supplanted your shitty scans but being too poor to afford anything better than a cannot 5ds must have done a number on your psyche. film could resolve the hairs on bigfoots nutsuck and you’d say “circle deez nuts, i cant see them”.
>>4370854Even he doesn't believe his own bullshit. That's why he doesn't post photos, answer questions, or circle in red where he thinks 'muh film won.'>>4370856>schizo ramblingDon't pretend to be someone else, it's obviously you.>linked a lot of scientifically valid high quality proof- Serger drunk posting. Remember his claims are demolished by the HXY Adox scan, he never projected film and counted the lines. He made that part up.- Parkin using nearest neighbor to beat a D800E, and 4x5 nearly losing vs IQ180.- Um...what else was there besides walls of cope?
>>4370857Schiz over deez nuts
>>4370857>no, my low res scans were not beat… everyone else is purposefully gimping digital. a d800e beats 6x9. >meanwhile 6x9 gets 800mp scans that show theres still details that have yet to be fully resolved>but muh… blurry upscaled tire…k lolone day you will spend as much time at work as you do here and you will be able to afford a gfx100sii, and you will finally have more resolution than most mf and even lf scansjust not the really good scans
>>4370865>appeals to scans that never existedEven the Howtek drum (map) and ICG 370HS (vw) are resolving down to grain, the HXY is well beyond what film can resolve and deep into oversampling the grain.>but duh lines on muh tire!Are in the drum file too, but you have to alter brightness to bring them out (picrel drum scan, levels at 1.5x). Remember that the 5Ds resolved similar lines in the Corvette tire's logo, proving once again that 6x9 is less than 50mp of real world resolution. And remember that the 24-70 f/2.8L II is sharper center than edge (see TDP tests). If I could slap my 85 f/1.4L IS on the 5Ds and shoot that exact VW bug scene with a prime stopped down, it would smoke Ektachrome 6x9 even on the HXY. It won, but it would win by a wider margin with a prime.You didn't even try to find the lines in the drum scan, didn't even notice that its shadows were deeper hence it needed a brightness adjustment to see them. Why? Because of your bias. You want film to win. You need film to win, even though film lost long ago because we're comparing 35mm sensors to fucking 6x9 film.Someday you will own a camera, and produce a photo, and then you won't be a nocamera nophoto.The eternal cope of the beta film autist:>nooo it's the scanner>nooo you need an even better scanner>nooo it's not fair without an electron microscope>that's right, grain is not the imaging element in film>IT'S ELECTRONS>INFINITY RESOLUTION AND 20 STOPS DRThis is now the 7th time you have been scientifically proven wrong. When do you give up?
>>4370874tldr 6x9 = over 800mp see >>4370809
>>4370874damn, if i were the film guy i would just stop posting now. can you shoot a car with your 5ds 85mm? at night with flash so it's same lighting?
>the details are 1px apart on this 400mp scan but trust me its only as good as 50mplol digidiots
>>4370880he just showed you that the drum also resolved those lines. when do you stop spamming this board?
>>4370882He upscaled a tire and there was less grain, so its better!Lmao 1px details on a 400mp scan bu
>>4370880After reading everything I believe this to be settled science.
>Come back from playing catch with my dogson>Digislug has gone from trying to insist that glorious 6x7 is less than 50mp to trying to insist that it is 400mp rather than 800mpCommon film W
*outresolves your foolframe by 350mp*Bow to the king baby[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS R5Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 25.0 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2000Image Height1334Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:03:29 16:46:24Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length128.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height1334RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4370881Yes, I'm planning on shooting a Mustang at night at ISO 100 with strobes, 5Ds + 85 f/1.4L IS and also R6 with the 85mm just because. I'm going to try and copy the VW bug shot in terms of framing/angle. I might also shoot with a wide angle to try and get the perspective they had. I need to wash the car and drive to a spot where the background won't give my location away. filmfag is proving to be mentally unhinged and I don't want to be stalked.>>4370882>>4370885If you zoom in and count the pixels you will find that in the region being discussed a line pair is roughly 12px (6px dark, 6px light). 22,813 / 12 = 1,901 lp across the frame. 5Ds needs 2px to resolve a line pair so 8,688 / 2 = 4,344 lp across the frame. Oops. 6x9 and 35mm have the same ratio so we don't need to worry about that or use lp/ph instead.Without testing it's impossible to figure out the total line pairs across the frame for a real world target. The lp pixel width will depend on target contrast because it's film, and scanner res with a higher res scanner using more pixels per lp. So the total lp would not really change on HXY, the limit is ultimately the film and lens. With a high contrast monochromatic B&W line chart you could probably get down to 4-5px (23k drum scan) and out resolve the 5Ds sensor. But that number would be meaningless for any other target.Real world? You would be damn lucky to get down to 8px, falling short of the 5Ds by a significant margin. You might see 6px with relatively high contrast real world detail, but that still falls short of the 5Ds.Note that if you assume 6-8px on real world detail in a 23k scan, and calculate the total lp range, you get a number that roughly matches what we see in the map scan. You can predict the margin by which the 5Ds will win depending on whether you're looking at text or relief texture.Funny how the math matches what we see. Almost like it's scientific or something.
>>4370890Unfathomably based.
>>4370901thats neat, can you post some photos you've taken with it?
>>4370882>>4370885>>4370888>>4370890>samefagging nocamera filmslugYou know, you could have zoomed into the VW bug drum scan and seen that the details were much larger than 1px wide. Just like you could have found the lines in the first place. But once again you stop trying and make something up in your mind so you can believe "hurr film won over 9,000 mp.">>4370901>nooo i really do own a cameraWhere's your hand and a note for /p/?>google image searchOhhh...nocamera confirmed. I'm sorry man, I know with your mental health issues it must be tough to earn money. I hope things get better for you and you can afford a camera someday. You know, used 5Ds/5DsR and D8x0 bodies are cheap now. If you get a 5Ds, 5DsR, or D850 you can even out resolve 6x9 film. A D800/810 may fall behind 6x9, but it will still demolish 645. I hope you can afford one someday.
>>4370904Despite your essay actual scientific tests show that even when kneecapped by a shitty old drum scanner color 6x7 significantly outresolves every full frame camera and does slightly better than an 80mp phase one. 6x9 is even better.Tests done with projectors show color films peak resolution is in ridiculous excess of what any practical scanning tech can achieve.The science is settled. Tim Parkin, Jim Kasson, Henning Serger, and many others have all corroborated the claim that medium format, even 6x6, is in vast excess of what most digital cameras can achieve and the only debating room left is whether everyone used a good enough lens to make sure 6x9 is not actually 1000mp.
>>4370906He doesn't own one, see: >>4370907
>>4370901Bro, we are getting to his head. He is scared of us even tho he is the obsessive schizo.
>someone posts a photo of a camera off google>meltdownimagine being this stressed because you're beginning to realize your poorfag "resolution god" camera cant outdo a $7 roll of film
>>4370908This makes real scientific sense. I think we can all agree that the science is settled now. Film wins.
>>4370912Yes, tests done by people who actually used the same subject in the same light clearly demonstrated that even on the low end, drum scanned 6x7 is significantly better than full frame and can only be beat by a Fujifilm GFX100. Which it could actually then beat, if said GFX100 were used to scan the 6x7 in PS UHR mode!This other retard is just saying that because he never scanned film that thoroughly it cant be done, like a micro four turder who doesnt know equivalence falls flat on its face if you dont shoot indoors or touch a flash
>>4370916>touch flashIs this too abstract of an insult for the microfourturders? It seems like it could be incredible.
>>4370908Be quiet nocamera. You've made an utter and complete fool out of yourself. You just got bitch slapped twice in a row.>hurr drum scanner shitty can't resolve tire lines map disqualifiedActually it did (posts proof).>durr film is 800mp because the tire lines are 1px wideActually they're 6px wide or 12px per pair, meaning 6x9 resolved significantly less than a 5Ds can.>NOOOOOOOO MUH PARKIN MUH SERGER MUH SCIENCEAnd oh yeah...>see i own a mamiya 7Why is your camera pic found on Google images? Where's your handwritten note to /p/?>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEReminder that:- Serger pulled numbers out of his ass. We know that for certain now based on the HXY Adox scan.- Parkin proved an IQ180 is better than 6x7 Provia on a high contrast B&W line chart and nearly as good as 4x5 in the real world. This is consistent with 50mp beating 6x9 on real world detail.- You've never linked to Kasson despite being asked, no idea why, maybe you have no confidence in whatever he said.
>>4370910>>4370911>>4370912>>4370916>>4370918Talk about a fucking meltdown.
>>4370920Touch flash, bro.>>4370919The science is settled. This is what a real meltdown looks like.
>>4370904looking forward to the car shot. don't blame you for wanting to hide your identity from filmfag, his posts are just getting freaky.
>>4370925>nophoto>samefagging this hardOpinion discardedThere's only one person that is having such a big meltdown that thinks digispammerschizo is talking with only one person and that is digispammerschizo himself. Scientifically proven.
Not reading your college essay bro
>>4370919tldr we have scans in this very threading showing that 6x9 vastly outresolves your cannot pos and you upscaling blurry detailless shit to cope
>>4370919Blind or lying to cope?
>>4370925It will be a little while, probably have to start a thread for it unless filmschizo is still shitting up threads.>>4370927>>4370928Be quiet nocamera.
>>4370923>>4370927>>4370928>>4370930>>4370931Samefagging this hard = total fucking meltdown. I wonder if...could filmschizo also be a snoyschizo?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotImage Width1200Image Height1240
>>4370934Melting down so hard and proving the schizo allegations to be settled science!
>>4370935Oh my...look at this saltwater damage.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPhone 6sImage-Specific Properties:Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/2.2ISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length4.15 mmExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAuto
This meltdown is absolutely beautiful.
>self btfo by linking 800mp film scan>start crying about sonyThe jokes write themselves
>hes spamming clive.jpegs because he btfo himself by linking 800mp film scans and comparing them to phone smear tier blown up tireshahahahaha dont you know the people btfoing you the hardest own a 22mp canon and a 45mp nikon respectively?
>>4370943>samefagging 5-6x per post>"hurr ur meltdown"Gorgeous.>>4370944>"hurr this line is 1px wide it proves 800mp!!!">actually 6px wide, 12px per pair>only 43% of 5Ds resolving powerJust how blind are you that you missed the lines in the drum scan AND thought 6px wide lines were 1px wide?>but you posted snoy!I'm guessing you're a snoyfag and you can't resist seething over dead snoy pics for long. Could be wrong though, but I need to know to settle the science. In terms of being insufferable is the ranking:filmschizo > snoyshill > m43fagOr:filmschizo = snoyshill > m43fag[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotImage Width1200Image Height1387
>>4370952Why do the film scans consistently have more and finer detail than your wobbly color changing bayer smears you say “win”?Why do you say “digital wins” when it turns orange grass green and clearly separated details into mush?
>>4370947>nophoto>claiming to own a camera>samefags literally 6x per reply>thinks everyone else is one person
>>4370952The settled science is that you are a schizo. You realize that everyone you're accusing of samefagging just sees you having a schizophrenic meltdown, right? You're outnumbered and everyone is laughing at your incredibly entertaining behavior.
>>4370953>Why do the film scans consistently have more and finer detai...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2370Image Height1185Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4370955>you're outnumbered because the 6 people in my head are real
>>4370947>Confused reddit tourist newfag still doesnt know how 4chan worksWhat a retard. Of course the redditor owns a SNOY lmao
>>4370959We are all here for you. I know it can be tough to admit you're wrong when your whole personality is tied to something so flat out wrong. I'm really proud of you for starting the grieving process on this one.
>>4370957Yes, why do they, whenever its not the same 5 shit scans you repost 10 times every time someone reminds you that your shitty canon is not, in fact, the best camera ever.And you have in fact posted comparisons ITT that show film clearly resolving more and finer detail than your plasticky smooth upscaled digital mess, even when digital gets a test subject that's twice as large in the frame.6x7 is not just 80mp, it's most likely more.All you've ever said is that "i personally am not able to shoot and scan film well enough to enjoy its full resolution"
imma let you finish but the nikon d850 achieves greater resolution than the cannot 5ds r simply because the signal to noise ratio is so significantly better that the 5mp difference doesn't matter, and yet the nikon d850 is consistently outresolved by 6x9 by a factor of two6x9 is at least 90mp but is most likely closer to 150mp. a very grainy 150mp.
>>4370965Its actually over 400mp
>>4370963>Yes, why do they, whenever its not the same 5 shit scans you repostYou don't post anything so when exactly is that? Why can't you find a scan that proves your point? How come now 7 comparisons have gone against you? Even your precious Parkin's results are actually consistent with 50mp > 6x9 in the real world.>your shitty canon is not, in fact, the best camera everNever claimed that it was. But it is better than your nocamera for sure.>And you have in fact posted comparisons ITT that show film clearly resolving more and finer detail than your plasticky smooth upscaled digital messSo you can circle in red where film has more detail?>crickets>6x7 is just not 80mp, it's most likely ~40mpfify>All you've ever said is that "i personally am not able to shoot and scan film well enough to enjoy its full resolution"I never said that. Did you say that about yourself? Then again, apparently no one can since you can't find a 6x9 scan that out resolves 50mp...any where.
>>4370965>words>noproofs
>>4370963>you've only got 5 shit scans>says the man with no scansthe science is settled that you've lost this debate
>>4370982Still in scientifically settled denial. It's okay. We get it. Moving on can be hard.
>>4370976>get btfo by scientific evidence>pretend it was all faked by a conspiracy>btfo yourself by comparing a high res scan to a blurry tire>pretend you won>have huge low iq meltieslemme guess, conservative?
>>4370984>claims high res scan is better, but cant find where>claims drum didn’t resolve something but it did>over estimates film’s resolution by 6x>appeals to authorities who are not authorities>pretends to be multiple people >refuses to answer questions >has no evidence >lies and straw mans>frequent meltdowns >runs from thread only to shit up another >uses the word science a lot, doesn’t know what it meansLemme guess, liberal?
>>4370984This is winning>>4370986This is losing, but also absolutely hilarious.
>>4370989Every time someone links you proof you say it was made up, didnt happen, and the tester was drunk or misrepresent it entirelyYou lost a long long time ago.
>>4370995>Every time someone links you proof you say it was made upSerger literally made up his numbers. Which is why he posted zero evidence, and why a 24,110 dpi 35mm scan of CMS 20 II on a scanner proven to hit 500 lp/mm could not find 260 lp/mm of resolution. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and Serger asserted without evidence. But I'm dismissing Serger WITH evidence proving he pulled the number from his ass, because if CMS 20 II could hit 260 lp/mm in the real world, then that HXY scan would have been MUCH better.>didnt happenThat's you insisting film won then offering a dozen excuses for why it lost. You betray your true thoughts with every flip flop, every reeee, every samefag post.>and the tester was drunk or misrepresent it entirelyStraw man and straw man. The only actual evidence you've ever posted is one article at onlandscape.co.uk. And that article does not contradict my claims, rather, it contradicts yours. Provia 6x7 clearly lost on a fucking line chart, the one place where film would be expected to win. And the IQ180 pulled very close to 4x5 in the REAL WORLD. That is entirely consistent with 50mp > 6x9 on a real world target, but contradicts your claims.Even your dumb tire lines fit my claims, not yours. "hurr im not gonna read your essay" that's because you're too stupid to follow simple arithmetic. You got caught making shit up and claiming the drum didn't resolve those lines, then got caught making shit up and claiming the lines were single pixel wide. Just like you were wrong about the drum scan, you are wrong about the line width. And when we estimate resolution from the real line width, we find that 6x9 Ektachrome loses by roughly the same amount we see in the map test. Multiple tests by different people using different equipment, yet we get the same results. THAT'S SCIENCE. THAT proves film simply lost.You lost this debate a long time ago, but then lost again today, hard.
>>4370995Science settled. Film won.
>>4371038that’s the best you can do? jesus man, your ass has been beat red you must be a masochist
>>4370995He's gone absolutely mental and cannot stop thinking about a man's ass.
>>4371052not everyone is a same fag like you. you’re both autistic but he actually knows what he’s talking about and proves his points. you just scream “science is settled” like al gore on cocaine. perfect npc
>>4371056Lol another schizo. He spams and derails thread constantly writing essays of pure cope. Perfect mental illness. The retard has an overwhelming obsession about the absolute most boring and generally meaningless aspect of photography.
>>4371064says the faggot who spams threads constantly with essays of pure cope and is overwhelmingly obsessed with the absolute most boring bullshit boomer claim in all of photography. ‘well in my day son we used film and it out resolved digital uphill in the snow.’ ive seen him post three good photos plus some comparisons were his youve posted shit go back to facebook grandpa
>>4371135Huh, I haven't posted a single essay in this entire thread, schizzboy. You're already trying to start shit in other threads because of your mental illness. How about you start taking better pictures instead of spending hours writing essays on something that doesn't matter today? Everyone can tell that a person like you takes terrible photographs.
>>4371277>i samefag so everyone else is a samefagOK schizo>Huh, I haven't posted a single essay in this entire thread, schizzboy.Uh oh: >>4370799>You're already trying to start shit in other threads because of your mental illness. Says the guy who ran away from this thread >>4362125 to start shit right here >>4367722>How about you start taking better picturesSays the nophoto.>Everyone can tell that a person like you takes terrible photographs.OK nophoto. Let's post some film photos together. I'll start.>crickets
>>4371277Oh and please link these other threads where I'm trying to start shit.>cricketsThe science is settled: you're a schizo.
>>4371511>>4371509So fun triggering you, nophoto. You spam the same 4 pictures and that map constantly. There's other threads where people are talking about 400mp 35mm better go spam your pics more.
>>4371509Here! Go spam your pics more and badly lose every argument while looking mentally ill. We all love the show you put on, nophoto.>>4371492
>>4371517That's you starting shit, retard.>>4371515I'm waiting for you to post a photo before I post more. I don't want you to fall behind, it's already 4:0.>muh 400mp scan!I can see I'm going to have to prepare a comparison for that crop, aren't I? Glad he typed out the full image pixel dimensions in the crop so you can't bitch that I didn't scale properly.
>>4371538More denial, more mental illness, more entertainment from the nophoto. Lovely.
>>4371544>projection: the post
>>4371550>Denial: the post
>>4371552>denialnooo digital didn't win a dog barked during the scan!>mental illnessdude film totally wonyeah i'm clearly a different person posting the same minute and film wonyou guys think film won? so do i and i'm somebody else even though my language and arguments are identical, yeah i'm definitely not samefagging and i thought film won too!>entertainment"Here's yet another comparison proving your ridiculous claims wrong."REEEEEEE FILM IS BETTER THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED I'M GOING TO KILL SOMEONE IF YOU DON'T AGREE!!!!!
>>4371554Can you do another schizo post for me? I like those ones.
>>4371556Just re-read all of your posts.
Thanks!>>4371559See>>4371550
>>4371559Hey, just wanted to say you're doing great in that other thread. Just spam your map and wheel pictures. Everyone already knows it's you.
>>4371661Who are you talking to?
