Disregarding how much of an echo chamber this hobby as far as never knowing where a claim truly originates, I do wonder if part of the reason people associate CCD sensors with "the film look" is not for any specific quality of CCD sensors as a technology but rather because most of the film photos to end up online for a decent while were run through some ancient Nikon/Minolta film negative scanner (with 8-bit color in extreme cases) and their flavor of color science and highlights started to be associated with the film medium itself rather than the scanners.
For me it’s with how plastic looking photos are from modern mirrorless cameras. It’s something to do with their doctoring of science to get higher dynamic range on tests that somehow also involves making things look more fake. The older sensors that don’t do this produce something more realistic because they were designed on good looking images not fooling idiots on tests
>>4370958People literally abandoned film because most scanners werent as good as digital cameras
>>4370958>I do wonder if part of the reason people associate CCD sensors with "the film look"You're overthinking it. The CCD thing is a meme "content creators" (advertisers) use to attract views, no intelligent person compares film to digital or digital to film.
>>4370999So why did all the dslr users swap to mirrorless for worse photos afterwards? Cattle will cattle.
>>4370996Its in your head and mostly has to do with default color profiles trying to appeal to fans of iphone color science
>>4370996Maybe turn down the NR setting? I've never seen plastic results from FF or apsc DSLRs or mirrorless.
>>4370999It was the scanners for consumers but for professionals digital just passed film up. The 1Ds mk II pulled ahead of 35mm for all but the most autistic microfilm line chart tests. MFDBs were challenging and pulling ahead of MF. LF lasted the longest but when MFDBs hit 80-100mp even big print landscape artists started switching.>nooooo 4x5 has more resolution than that!!!And more grain, worse color accuracy, worse dynamic range, and more problems in general. I remember the first art gallery where I looked at an 80mp MFDB print next to a 4x5 print...both fine art landscapes, both something ridiculous like 6ft tall...and thought "I can't tell the fucking difference without a loupe."Consumers were budget limited to 35mm and 2,700-4,000 ppi scanners, or maybe MF on a flatbed or a 4,000 ppi Nikon CoolScan. Those held up OK against 6-8mp apsc when shooting slow speed slide. But the first 5D retired a lot of that equipment. I remember because ebay prices dropped like a rock. I wish I had taken advantage of those deals back then, just for the nostalgia and fun.
>>4371035Yep. Night and day. Turn off NR or keep it low, then do post NR on anything with unacceptable ISO. OOC NR is generally more effective since the software alg is tailored to that camera, but also tends to smear more shit over everything at the same time. I also recommend turning off any extra sharpness, and keep contrast at or only slightly above normal. Those alone have meant my photos come out looking more natural
>>4371000This. It's just another flavor of console wars faggotry.
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV AF-3200VueScanKODAK AEROCOLOR IV Negative Film 2460JPG at 75 to fit inside the size limitno other edits
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV AF-3200VueScanKODAK AEROCOLOR IV Negative Film 2460JPG at 87 to fit inside the size limitno other editsprobably the highest resolution film I shoototherwise just a common snapshits
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV AF-3200VueScanIlford Delta 3200JPG at 75 to fit inside the size limitno other editsI just can't justify the cost of a digital camera compared to the 50 bucks I've spend on this scanner (I have 4 of them now lmao).INB4 namefag calls all of these blurry mess and posts the 400mp scan of an APS film
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV AF-3200VueScanIlford Delta 3200JPG at 77 to fit inside the size limitno other editsas the kids saykino
>>4370958I remember taking concert photos of Pink Floyd when I attended them in '87. I brought along a Contax 159MM, and a Zeiss 85 mm F 1.2 lens. The film was Kodachrome 200, back then a newly released product only a couple of years old.I wanted to print to the particular moment in the concert when David was playing his solo on Shine On, and I got them to do an inter negative 4x5 on it. I've printed maybe half a dozen prints off of it. I've got one in the native size but I've also got an enlargement that's at 16 by 20. The details are pretty good although you can see some camera movement even with the lens that fast. You can definitely see though some artifacts like light fall off from it being wide open.Fast cut to 3 weeks ago I bring that slide in to get a professional scan of it, and the guy asked me what it is and I tell him. So he goes and digs out a projector because I also have the other slides from that concert about 95 of them on three different rules of film. There is also a gorgeous nude of my girlfriend at the time, laying back on the bed, her arms folded behind her head kind of defiantly with their sweater pulled up over breasts under Bush kind of shyly hidden mostly by her almost crossed legs. I love that photo of her but I don't have a copy anymore because my wife tossed out the photo I had printed of it. But I'm going to fix that. He made me a scan of that negative and the nude, and applied a lot of Correction to it. He got me though to approve which corrections I wanted and which I didn't. He loved was the grain effects from the fast Kodachrome emulsion though. He did correct though the slight motion blur to it, as well as the bulk of the light fall off that he could without introducing banding and other artifacts. All told the extra $20 of editing was worth it. I remember the concert only vaguely having gone to a couple of thousand over the years but this one was one of my favorites but I couldn't remember very much of it.
>>4371357The difference between the original internet and what is achievable off a scan is night and day. He did a tiny bit of sharpening on it but not enough to be seriously noticeable. It doesn't approach a true digital quality, but it doesn't need to. It's got that look of the codachrome green on it and color palette, and you can't achieve that with a digital camera except maybe a few of the medium format ones have film mimicking
>>4371357Comfy story, anon.
>>4371036The reason so many professional photographers dumped film was turnaround time and color accuracy.All 4 of these statements are facts:>6x9 film can vastly outresolve most digital cameras even today, with a 1 week turnaround time and about a hundred bucks per frame spent on high end scans.>A digital camera can come close enough for realistic print sizes immediately.>6X9 film can vastly disappoint consumers who ordered color A because it was a pretty photo and got an entirely different hue.>A digital camera can have boring, dead colors SOOC but consumers who order color A actually get color ABut film still exists. Brand new MF and LF film cameras are still being made. Why?Artists DGAF about turnaround times or color accuracy. Artists arent the #1 paying customers of canikony either.
>>4371137>>4371138>>4371141>>4371143congrats, you out-resolved the image.
>>4371485at 3000-ish real DPI?I don't think so.But it is enough for social media and small prints for my photo albums and that's all I do.
>>4371487we have a new schizo who thinks that if you "resolved grain" (have digital scanner artefacts) there are no details beyond that. which means a 6 megapixel lab scan must be the peak resolution of vision3 because you can bet you will be getting "grain" off a fuji frontiers or noritsus 6mp scan.this is a 100% crop of a 400mp scan of a single 35mm color negativehttps://files.catbox.moe/olei6w.jpgthe grain is not even fully resolved. if it were, you'd have voids between individual grains, and there's still utlrafine details like that twig stuck in the grill and the rust spots. i think a 100mp scan would have been good enough for "all the detail" personally.
>>4371492now is it 100mp as in bayer sensor resolution (so 33mp really) or 100mp as in true linear CCD resolution?
>>4371494It's pixel shift CMOS resolution, so essentially a virtual 400 million pixel foveon sensor with 16 stops of dynamic range. About half as high res as normal 6x9 color negs with about the same dynamic range.
>>4371496I've seen people complaining about weird artifacts with pixel shift especially on Fuji cameras.The question is.Is it 60 times better than the Minolta? Because it cost's 60 times as much.
>>4371498The artifacts happen if a car drives by or your dog barks when you scan. The same thing can happen to any fine detail scanner that runs in scan lines or does multiple shots. Countless photographers have given up on film because cars drove by during their scans. Very tragic.>Is it 60 times better than the Minolta? Because it cost's 60 times as much.Obviously, it is. You could strike a good balance by scanning your 35mm film with any ok 35mm camera. It wouldn't be peak resolution, and for bigger film you'd have to try and stitch, but it would still look better than an older scanner and you'd get to play with two cameras.
>>4371500>The artifacts happen if a car drives by or your dog barks when you scan.that's not truecheck out the various facebook camera scanning groups
>>4371501PSMS has artefacts if something moves. And it only has to move 0.9 microns (the virtual pixel pitch) during the 16 shot sequence.>don't breathe, don't walk, don't turn on the watera cheaper scanner like a sony a7rii would be more forgiving
>>4371371>The reason so many professional photographers dumped film was turnaround time and color accuracy.It was IQ as well. Guys shooting 6x9 weren't buying apsc DSLRs, but MFDBs.>But film still exists. Brand new MF and LF film cameras are still being made. Why?Because it's enjoyable for some people and can provide a unique look.
>film superior!>5 stops of dynamic range>hold my GND filter bag>then $220 later we might have one single nice scan if i dont scratch the emulsion by accident>oops there was a dog hair inside the camera
>>4371519the fact that the most prominent film shooter in here fucks dogs almost makes me wanna shoot digital
>>4371492And we have an old schizo who gets his ass beat then runs to start shit in other threads because he sure as hell can't back up his claims or answer any questions in the previous threads.>we have a new schizo who thinks that if you "resolved grain" (have digital scanner artefacts) there are no details beyond that.How do you resolve detail beyond the base imaging element? Do digital cameras resolve details smaller than a single pixel? Can laser and ink jet printers image something smaller than single dot?Grain is visible even at 2,700 ppi. Going higher better resolves the actual grain which has benefits, namely a sharper image and the grain isn't as obtrusive. With dedicated 35mm desktop scanners some films would scan great and others would look like shit depending on the resolution of the scanner because that resolution determined the range at which destructive interference occurred between the average grain size and the CCD pixel pitch.>which means a 6 megapixel lab scan must be the peak resolution of vision3There you go lying again. If you have to lie, you've lost. You're also a schizo.>this is a 100% crop of a 400mp scan of a single 35mm color negative>https://files.catbox.moe/olei6w.jpg>the grain is not even fully resolved.It absolutely is and there's nothing left to recover from that frame.>if it were, you'd have voids between individual grainsGrain is not arranged in a grid with spaces like pixels. Grain overlaps in B&W film, and dye clouds in color film overlap even more.
>>4371494>>4371496Jesus Christ, stop samefagging and making up exaggerated numbers. It is so god damn annoying.
>>4371500LMFAO that was a peak schizo moment, wasn't it?
>>4371524nigger
>>4371519>but i swear it has over 9,000 megapickles of resolution! i just can't show you an example, but it's there!!!
>>4371526>photoshop
>>4371530meds
>>4371528HOW DARE YOU DENY THE 6 MILLION MEGA PICKLES OF MY 35MM FILM?
>>4371137>Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IVMinolta made good scanners back in the day. I didn't personally own one of theirs but had the chance to work on files scanned on them. Very competitive with Nikon's CoolScans.
>>4371534Oy vey! Careful with the antifilmism.
>>4371492what a waste lmao. still looks like shit @ 100%
>>4371137>>4371138>>4371141>>4371143I think you need to change whatever settings it uses for sharpening, they are way to gritty.And you can see how it struggles for dynamic range in that low light shot, highlights gone.And as I said in the fgt, please clean your fucking sensor. But for $50 I wouldn't complain, I'm sure an 8x10 would look fine off it.Here's a sony scan equalised for px dimensions, film is 20yo superia 400, you can see the green grain is the expiredness showing through.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiExposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0ISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlash, Return Not DetectedFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibrated
>>4371492I think it looks fantastic, and it really isn't a waste at all. If that looks like shit to you I would suggest taking your shit covered goggles off.
>>4371573It's a very good scan, but not 400mp equivalent which is what schizo is claiming.
>>4370958Maybe, but old scanner + Gold 200 its just so comfy man.I might try camera scanning soon but well see how that goes.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeMinoltaCamera ModelScan Dual IICamera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:07:14 12:20:40Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3743Image Height2559
>>4371586Those old 2,700-3,200 ppi scanners are plenty good enough for 8x10 prints, even larger with some post work. Which means good enough for social media. You go higher res if you regularly print 16x20 or need to print even larger.picrel is Kodak Supra two decades ago at Sea World, scanned on my first home scanner, Acer ScanWit 2720S. Kodak Supra was a great film and I was bummed when they canceled it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 25.12 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3708Image Height2502Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution360 dpiVertical Resolution360 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:10:09 16:33:32Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2400Image Height1619
>>4371581yeah, it's obviously more than 400mp35mm color negative film is probably closer to 500mp>>4371598god damn dude i thought this was a picture of my mom
>>4371601>soft as a pillow at 1:1>"it's probably 500mp"
>>4371607sharpness isn't the same thing as resolutionfilm has very high resolution, but ass sharpness, and that sharpness gets ass way before digital is even at the mechanical limit of what it can resolvedigital produces amazing sharpness up to the limits of its resolution and then it takes a dump as it enters into aliasing landthis is why people call film more natural looking and why film is still used by the motion picture industry, which is basically the only reason film is even still made
>>4371610>why film is still used by the motion picture industryI thought because some directors are pretentious hacks
>>4371612It's because they want their films to be projected huge and film looks better in that application, and it frees the costume department from a lot of "what if this jacket or prop flickers from intermittent moire and how the fuck will we fix that in post".Watch some netflix originals (mostly digital cinema) with a critical eye and you'll start realizing why directors shooting films intended to be box office hits are keeping film on life support
>>4371601Looks more like 501MP, actually.>>4371610They keep film around so that I personally can use it to take pictures of leaves and rocks.
>>4371610you have been btfo’d in multiple threads now why are you starting this shit again?
>>4371598Cool photo, the saturated colours work really well. I also like the giant toilet and the walrus-shaped animal handler
>4371618Schizo post, don't reply
>>4371649>breaking reply link>calling others schizo
>>4371614It's not even close to showing individual grains. One individual frame of 35mm film probably has 1000mp of resolution. How good that resolution looks is a matter of opinion.
>>4371675Film is so cool and good. Love that stuff.
>>4371562>I think you need to change whatever settings it uses for sharpening, they are way to gritty.this is the optimal setting>And you can see how it struggles for dynamic range in that low light shot, highlights gone.it's Delta 3200 at 3200 in near darkness against bare light bulbs, there is nothing in the highlights>And as I said in the fgt, please clean your fucking sensor.we've never talked to each other fgt
>>4371736>we've never talked to each other fgtThis isn't you?>>4370889>>4370567At least you're not the only one on the board using a dusty potato to scan then?
>>4371736>there is nothing in the highlightsIt's a negative, so obviously there is, your scanner just can't expose it. Pic related is rollei retro 80s pointed at the sun, I guarantee it produces a denser highlight than delta 3200.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 550DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2024:10:10 21:32:24Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/11.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width0Image Height0RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4371601>35mm equals 400mp, 500mp, even 1000mp! the science is sett...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width3076Image Height1994
>>4371601>oh no no no no no!!![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width3074Image Height1996
>>4371601>hey! it looks equal here. we did it!>wait...film at 33%...>not like this filmschizos...not like thisAt 33% the film scan is actually a bit sharper, but you would normally apply a little sharpening to the 5Ds file which takes sharpening exceptionally well and would pull ahead on that metric even at a 3:1 disadvantage.Discussion of the scan:https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/18if5vm/trying_400_megapixels_scans_on_several_film/Scan crop:https://files.catbox.moe/olei6w.jpgTrain shot RAW on a Canon 5Ds + 24-70 f/2.8L mark II @ 35mm f/8 1/160 hand held at ISO 800. All sharpening and NR were disabled, RAW opened in PS, then scaled directly to 20,310 width using Preserve Details with NR at 0.That film scan is a top notch camera scan of film, and compares favorably to a high end drum or HXY scan. Kudos to the photographer who shot and scanned it. But it is not 400mp. 33% of 50mp = 16.5mp. That's actually a bit better than I would expect for C200, but in line with a realistic assessment of film vs. digital IQ.Cue the crying, the denial, the excuses, the samefagging...oh god, the samefagging...the lies, and the childish shutdown. All from one schizo who won't stay in a single thread because he loses and has to shit up other threads.For the schizo, that's:Digital: 8Schizo: 0Schizophotos: 0Note: you don't shoot film for any of this autistic shit. Shoot it for a unique rendering. For old cameras. To work in the darkroom. As an additional creative outlet. To try new things. Most people don't need 60" prints. A 35mm camera and 2,700 ppi scanner can make great 8x10s, even stretching to 16x20 with a little post work, and works fine for social media. Enjoy film. Just don't be a nophoto schizo.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3074Image Height1998Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4371601Oh, and thanks for giving me another comparison for any time a nophoto filmschizo like you claims ridiculous shit while screaming 'muh science duh settled!'
>>4370958your language is weird nonsense, i have tried scan dual 3 & 4, also some ccd cameras, none are quite realistic, but can get close
Imagine seething that badly over utter and unequivocal defeat yet again for days and days and days then spamming up another thread.
>>4371979>denial
>>4371972Didn't read your words except to glean which camera you used for the blue shit, but the downscaled 400mp film scan is noticeably sharper and higher resolution than the 50mp DSLR.Therefore, 35mm film, not even good film, but fuji 200, is better than a 50mp DSLR. Medium format has over 4x the area so do the math>over 200mp
the science is settledeven a 50mp full frame digital camera with a canon "L" lense only sort of keeps up with the cheapest 35mm color negative shot on a fucking helios lens>>4371972nice pixellated chainlinks and phone tier bayer blobs
>>4371991>>4371990Just watch him shit up this thread now. He cannot face the truth. The science is settled that he is a science denier.
>>4371993The funny part is he literally tried to give the film a disadvantage by scaling it downSee these little gaps in the cobweb/twig thing? Those are line pairs. See how they don't exist in his downscaled film? He scaled the film down, losing resolution, so he could claim film has less resolution.Just so he could accidentally prove that even with an artificial disadvantage, the cheapest 35mm negative ran through a soviet shitbox actually looks as good a $1400 50mp FF DSLR+Professional zoom if you have the skills and equipment to enlarge it correctly.
>>4371996I've been trying to tell him that from day one, but he keeps denying the science and spamming maps and tires for some strange reason. Watch him say we are the same person in his next post, and deny the settled science that we are two individual people who know the truth.
>>4372000But we are the same person!
>>4372001Are you for real? You got any settled science backing up that claim?
Peep this post for a hearty chuckle.>>4371538
>>4371990>>4371991>>4371993>>4371996>>4372000>>4372001>crying denial excuses samefagging...oh god, the samefagging...liesNext will come the childish shutdown.>>4371990>downscale the film side so it doesn't look as hideous and has a chance>"see, this proves film is actually better!"So what you're saying is that you think a 32" print of film is better than a 96" 5Ds print?I don't think that's the flex that you think it is.
>>4371993>"science denier"Are you actually a liberal npc who thinks driving a Prius can save the Earth? It would explain your language and appeals to authorities who are not actually authorities. Asking for a friend.
>>4370958It doesn't matter. It used to matter when creating images was hard. Now we have more images than there are human eyes and time to look at them. All the nuances in technology and processing are merely for our own entertainment. Nothing we shoot will live on in posterity beyond our lives. As the great glut of photographic images and video is whittled away by the loss of value in this commodification and inevitability of data loss intentional or otherwise, none of what we shoot with any of this gear makes any difference to anyone but ourselves. The difference between any two technologies used in image capture are mere seconds worth of all the choices an imagemaker decides in processing for end use anyway. One tool or another, it's all the same.
>>4371996>nooo downscaling the film actually put it at a disadvantage!>muh film scratch proves film's superiority!!!Holy fucking cope.
>>4372001Told you. Lmfao.
>Digislug trolled into admitting 35mm = over 50mp and mf = over 200mpWe'll see you in the MF shooters club someday, digislug
>>4372009Of course you're one person. In every fucking thread...every single fucking one...your "different people" show up at the exact same time, spam the exact same bullshit, use the exact same language, then disappear until you bet btfo'd again. Oh, except for the "person" who uses small caps but also posts at the same time, same language, same shit. Are you even trying?You are sub 100 IQ if you think you're successfully passing yourself off as different people.
>>4372010>16.5 > 50npc mathbut nophoto
>>4372008>I-it's a film scratch!Looks more like a couple of bent up pine needles or leaf stems, or just dirty cobwebs, it's kind of on the absolute edge of what that soviet lens can resolve but it's definitely not a film scratch. its resolved line pairs you downscaled into oblivion.
>>4372011Lmfao. You know how funny it is knowing I haven't samefagged a single time and you give me these wonderful essays to read that I know for a fact are incorrect? I hope all the other filmGODS who have been replying to you feel the same way.
>>4371492>there's still utlrafine details like that twig stuck in the grill>>4371996>See these little gaps in the cobweb/twig thing? Those are line pairsWhat's extra hilarious about watching this play out is that neither of them shoot or scan enough film at high res to realise that this is dust physically sitting on the film and imaged by the digital capture system.It is not a "line pair", darling.But carry on...
>>4372013>a needle or leaf stem is floating in mid airLMFAO you truly are a nocamera noscan nophoto. It might not be a scratch, could be dog hair.>you downscaled into oblivion.Well it was either film scratch or fuzzy mush and dye clouds.
>>4372015>i would never samefag>we all just show up at the same time, every time>it's a coincidence!
>>4372019The secret is we all enjoy shitting on you because you ruin every thread you enter. I've seen your maps and tires in at least 50 seperate threads now.
>>4372020
>>4372021nah he is right, fuck off retard
>>4372021You're calling at least 6 people one person because reasons. Go look at the last thread you had a meltdown in. There are posts 10 seconds apart and you still say they're samefagging.
>>4372005>liberal npc who thinks driving a Prius can save the Earth? It would explain your language and appeals to authoritiesOh yeah, like all those libbbbruls that love authoritarians so much they make up the hordes of mindless followers of organized religions, fetishize militaristic command structures, fight change, fight deviation, fight to conserve the narrow path, seek & enforce norms, and insist on rigid, fixed thinking, choosing career fields of tightly limited and controlled thought and prefer security to freedom.And not, you know, the conservative mindset, which seeks to conserve nothing, preferring instead explore every available idea, try every new thing especially the unproven, with no guarantees, no regularity, no structure, only the pursuit of boundless creativity to the appreciation of true randomness, and open to any novel ways of living, and not just primitive ape-like hierarchical brute-force-based familial, social, or governance structures, no these are the great conservative minds who eschew all that to give only consideration to the loose, ad-hoc communal, changing & endlessly revisionary consensus of the global scientific community, whose unpredictability is considered the most beautiful creation and virtue of this species. Yeah, all those conservative creatives in the arts, so much great music, 2d and 3d art... not a bunch of fucking engineers and religious cunts like those liberals who think they learned all the simple easy pat answers to everything in whatever book they were told to read in church & class, because everything they didn't learn that can't be explained by a simple formula is an absurd irrationality and they can't handle it.God damn I hate those authoritarian boot-licking liberal thought, the wide-ranging free wheeling ideas that conservatives are fighting to conserve, mmm yeah, so independent in thought, mmmmmm creamy jizzzzzzzzzz
>>4372024The really funny part is our map and tire spammer was the first to say that the science was settled. I've been using it to mock him ever since.
>>4372021>accuse someone of samefagging>magically two people respond 1m apart>"nooo that means i'm actually different people!"Sometimes different people post at the same time. But not every time on the same topic with the same language, arguments, copes, and insults.Instead of samefagging, why don't you...I don't know...post a photo?
>>4372026Here's the thing. Listen carefully. I don't samefag because I don't need to. It wouldn't be as funny if I was samefagging either.
>>4372024LMFAO talk about hitting a nerve. I'm not reading all that shit. Thanks for confirming though that for you "settled science" is no observation, no experimentation, just mindlessly repeating what you've been told by a (non) authority. Actual scientists try shit and look for answers. For you to try for answers in this debate, you would have to actually take and post photos.>>4372025Oh look, "another person."
>>4372027>Here's the thing. Listen carefully. I don't post photos.We know.
I can't even keep track but if you like nervous digital squiggles or you like fuzzy film pointillism that's ok, these threads have taught me that there's really no point comparing them on technical merit. Film is like an oil painting whereas digital is a sketch on PS, and the 5DS guy is comparing the number of bristles on the physical brush with a PS brush. Sure, one medium has created timeless art and the other is used to make furry porn, but one day the digital medium will be fully realised as an artistic tool.
>>4372031Better, but "nervous digital squiggles" and timing gave you away.
>>4372028>>4372029Jokes on you, I am an schizoid!
Meltdown level 9001 has been reached. The lolcow does not stop providing.
>>4372034"Provide" is the right word since he at least posts photos.
Lmfao.Film won.
>>4372036Fucking shots fired.>>4372037Childish Taunt Level Achieved, pls buy camera and post photo.
The most obvious samefag in history after screaming at 12 people for samefagging. He cannot stop delivering. What will he post next?
>>4372044>no uNo because I'm not pretending to be anyone else. My language, positions, and style are obvious. So are yours, but you pretend they are not.This is what? The third or fourth thread you've derailed with this shit? I have never, not once, seen you post a photo. Not unless you were the forest scan guy which would just serve to increase your samefag level. Stop being a little bitch and post some photos.
Is it just cope or legitimate schizophrenia that he thinks I'm the only person that finds his constant spamming and thread derailment insufferable?
>>4372016>>4372018>its not real detail its film scratches its dog hairs AARRRGH TIM PARKINS SECRET UPSCALING METHODSalas the cheapest 35mm color negative at least equals a 5ds r
>>4372059Look. There's like 15 examples of the "samefag" posting multiple times within a minute in the last thread. He must be new...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1577
>>4372059This one is extra funny.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height2060
>>4372059>at 1/3rd the print sizeAgain, I don't think this is the flex that you think it is.>>4372061>>4372062Thank you.
>>4372059He will fabricate any excuse. It's pure delusion. Narcissism and schizophrenia are my guess.
>>4372067Are you the troll who shit up Sugar's thread? Do you have any photos at all?
>This guy having a meltdown any time any film whatsoever outdoes his precious 5dsrReminder, he also says an a7rv is not better than a 5dsr, and neither is a gfx100s.And yet, by every objective scientific measurement, even a shitty drum scan of 6x7 is good for 80mp. Better scanners have achived over 700mp on kodachrome, with visible single pixel line pairs that could still be enlarged.What's his problem?1: Sunk cost fallacy2: He doesn't know that sharpness and resolution aren't the same thing and has a fit because he can't understand how anyone would care that film resolves so much extra detail when the edges aren't fine, hard contours like he's used to on digishitters
>>4372073Hell no. I contribute plenty of pictures in other threads. My fun is with the map and tire spammer and him alone. You haven't noticed how often he spams his maps and tires to purposefully derail threads? HPoor guy has has a mental illness.
>>4372074>Reminder, he also says an a7rv is not better than a 5dsrNever once said that. I did point out to you that it had worse high ISO noise than a 5Ds/5DsR, and complained about Sony falling behind on high ISO performance across their entire line with the last gen. But that's one metric, and I just wanted to twist your nipple since you're also a snoy troll but apparently without a Sony camera or any camera.>and neither is a gfx100s.Definitely never said that. You're really ramping up the lies here, schizo.>And yet, by every objective scientific measurementYou've never posted or linked a scientific measurement. Or a photo. Or any proof that you own a camera. Or your med schedule as you're obviously not taking them.>Better scanners have achived over 700mp on kodachromeThe numbers keep going higher, yet the comparisons keep getting worse for you. I thought drum scanners and HXY scanning were dog shit and the ultimate scanner was a GFX100 pixel stitch delivering 400mp from 35mm. Yet you lost harder today than ever. Please post a 700mp Kodachrome scan, I beg you.Kodachrome was good, but Velvia 50 out resolved it, and that's according to Kodak (63 lp/mm at ISO 25) and Fuji (80 lp/mm). Of course you've never read a film data sheet, and in fact are confused by them, so you wouldn't know that. What made Kodachrome famous was its color and it took decades for anything else to catch up. Kodachrome was also rather sharp thanks to the unique design (3x B&W layers with dyes/couplers added during development), but both Kodak and Fuji caught up by the early 90s. I wasn't that crazy about K64 in 35mm but loved K25. Sadly barely got to shoot it before it was gone. Would have loved to shoot K25 in 4x5.>film resolves so much extra detailCircle the extra detail for us in red please.>What's his problem?I'm OCD and debating with an ignorant nophoto schizo.So did you shit up Sugar's thread?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4372077>Hell no. I contribute plenty of pictures in other threads.Link to one please.>crickets
>>4372074He thinks I am still samefagging. At least he admits one of his mental illnesses.
>>4372085Give shit get shit spammer. No way will I link you any pictures. You'll just have another meltdown and completely derail another thread.
>>4372086Everyone thinks you do, idiot.>>4372061>>4372062
>schizo still writing college book essay replies that nobody is readingliteral mental illness
>>4372088Not the twelve people replying to you. Notice how all these posts are less than a minute from each other? The only real proof of samefagging/not samefagging.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height703
>>4372084>reposting the shitty scan of 2 different mapslolsorry you were wrong and had to make ul stories about henning serger being a raving drunk and tim parkin not owning a camera to cope6x7 = 1000mp cope
>>4372094We should make a bingo card for when he will inevitably derail another thread.
>>4372094>can't find extra detail on left>right has the extra detailI'm going to post that map until you can find the extra detail.>but the maps are different!!!They're obviously the same except for a few very minor decisions by the map maker (like not running lines through lakes). Won't stop you from using that as a cope. Also post photo.>can't post photo>>4372089>samefag>>4372092>samefag>12 peopleIs that how many are in your head? You realize you're posting proof that you samefag, right?>>4372094>6x7 =80mp>no! 35mm = 500mp>NO! 6x7 = over 9,000 mppicrel[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 Height427Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4372097You can only make 1 post per minute retard.
>>4372097>Schizo meltdown againYou shoot Sony, don't you?
>>4372096A bingo card? That's a good idea.
>>4372099SAMEFAG![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1469Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:10:10 19:29:23Light SourceUnknown
>>4372098>posts are 1m apart>"nooo i'm not a samefag you can only post 1 per minute"OH LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpi
>>4372102>never pretends to be anyone else>SAMEFAG!
>>4372101>>4372103The lolcow always delivers in the best of ways.
>>4372101>>4372102>>4372103>>4372106>>4372107jfc this is so sad
>>4372109I posted a screen cap where two posts critical of mr.meltdown are like 17 seconds apart and he still cannot admit there are all sorts of people that cannot stand his spamming and thread derailment. Narcissism, delusional thoughts of grandeur, paranoia, dissociation from reality, mania, extreme OCD to name a few of his symptoms.
>>4372112>I posted aphoto?>no...nophoto
>>4372115>confused reddit tourist still herelmao retard
>>4372116>still...not...one...photo
>>4372116He won't leave until everyone gives him an updoot tells him his digishart purchase is heckin' valid and film is le gay and loser.
>>4372136>links photo scans from reddit>mentions reddit every thread>can't defend arguments like a redditor>appeals to authority and "settled science" like a redditor>gets upset like a down voted redditor>starts acting like a child like a redditor>"no u from reddit!"Maybe you should go back?
>>4372149This >>4372116 is not me dipshit. It is remarkably hilarious that you're still convinced it's just one person. You suck bro. Everyone hates your overly aggressive, spamming, thread derailing bullshit. You seriously can't see that? You have to delude yourself into thinking it's just one person. Even after irrefutable evidence you're wrong??? Why?
>>4372149>Schizo rant Meds
>>4372136Oh shit, I almost forgot!>reeeeeeees like a redditor >>4372024Is Al Gore going to save us from duh global warmingz?
>>4372154This.
>>4372153>nooooo we down voted you pls leave our communityLOL
>>4372160You constantly spam and derail threads for no good reason. The reaction you get is exactly what you deserve and you reward all of us with this incredible behavior. Everyone is laughing at you and your severe mental breakdown.
>>4372162>"everyone">the one faggot who is actually responsible for derailing this thread
>>4372166
>>4372166I am partially responsible because I told you about this thread, and I asked you if you were going to shit this thread up as well. You said "yes, gladly."Pretty soon after you started spamming all your 60IQ digicope in this thread! Now look. You've provided all of us with so many laughs and entertainment all at your expense.
>>4372162>exactly what you deserve!!!Let me explain something to you redditor: this is 4chan. The fact that you can't defend your claims and breakdown to this point every time only makes me harder. Your "down votes" and meltdowns don't hurt my feefees, they just encourage me. Go back if you want to be coddled by a community.You don't want to discuss this? Then don't say stupid shit with no evidence. You don't want me to derail a thread? Then don't derail a thread with "hurr some idiot didn't believe me when i said film had over 9,000mp can you believe that? upvote me!" You want me to be nice? Then don't lie, exaggerate, samefag, appeal to authority, "science is settled", or come up with stupid copes to avoid having to defend your argument.If you were capable of being an adult this discussion would have ended in the first thread. If you weren't spamming shit across multiple threads it would have been over, first thread. If you had said something like "personally i like film better" I never would have even replied. Something for you to discuss with your therapist next week.
I was never impressed with film scanning. I used both the hasselblad flextite 1 and 5. They're good but honestly the film just didn't hold up for large prints without shooting large format.The scanner is supported anymore so it's a bit of drag to use. We have an x1 hidden in a closet at work with an older mac to be able to use the thing.I've been playing with X1D and the colors are just straight up better than my canon 5Ds but not enough to rationalize the price tag or lens limitations.So it's all a mixed bag. Unless there's a medium specificity that I need to rationalize a traditional process I'll default to my canon simply because it is easy to use and I have pile of options when it comes to lenses, tools, and post processing.Here's a mantis shot on an Elan7 with 100 macro L scanned at 8000 ppi 16 bit color tiff shot on ektar 100 35mm - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g8d3x3ezfv57jyz3jmqrm/Untitled.tif?rlkey=ak5d76j231gry9nm1gv8f2pn1&dl=0It just isn't that impressive, especially for a film designed for scanning. It does better in large formats but fuck that noise for most work.Here's a raw from X1D. Just top tier color but not worth the price tag.B0000415.3FR
>>4372189>another coping blog post wall of texttl;dr go back
>>4372193This and same. When he does his essay thing that means he is really angry. It's kind of a fun game to try and write as little as possible to make his write as much as possible. Bonus points for making him really latch onto and obsess over the whole reddit thing. Must have really gotten to him.
>>4372192ope didnt manage the linkhttps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7o3uw68kii85t0bnnjgef/B0000415.3FR?rlkey=lacglhu34ix07amwj3e6pbjsp&dl=0
>>4372202>spends multiple threads samefagging, lying, exaggerating, crying>"nooo i don't care but he really cares"I just realized something. In the course of this "debate" we've actually scientifically proven that 35mm maxes out at 16.5mp. I think I'll submit an article for onlandscape.co.uk. Maybe Tim Parkin will coauthor.
>>4372202you respond as much as he does and have the more entertaining meltdowns i don't think you can call this a win
>>4372207>>4372212>obvious samefagging againLMAO
>>4372212>>4372207Keep spamming your maps and tires. Maybe the 100th time you derail a thread one person will agree with you. In the meantime I'll keep milking the lolcow.
>>4372214>>4372217>everyone is a samefag like me
>>4372220The most obvious edit in the world. If you haven't realized this yet you are the stupid one. Take your meds secret king timmy.
>>4372222
>>4372222>>4372223Note the file name. You are so fucking predictable. But do you ever get tired of being a dumb ass?
>>4372224For >>4372222 who is obviously also >>4372223
>>4372224I love this desperation and mental retardation. Thanks for being so entertaining, secret king.
>>4372229>100% predictable>proven wrong yet again>"hurr i'll call him names that will show him"You can do better than some faggy reddit meme. Come on...
>>4372232You constantly derail threads by spamming pictures of maps and tires in them. When you get rightfully shit on by everyone you cope by saying it's all one person. 100% predictably you will just say "no you" even after proof. The projection is wild.You are the laughing stock of /p/.
>>4372238>repeats tired bullshit>"everyone shits on you"Ahhh...muh feelings.>everyone = one samefagLOL/p/ laughs at nophotos. And not one single photo from you. Ever. In any of the threads you shit up.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4372239This is how predictable you are. >>4371517Your mental illness does not allow you to be wrong. It comes off as delusional and narcissistic. How many threads have you shit up with the same tired and boring pictures? 100? I'm simply shitting on a spammer that everyone wishes would go away. Your posts are purely entertainment for me. Continue dancing for me monkey.
>>4372244>shits up another thread >>4371492>samefags for effect >>4371494 >>4371496>sitting at computer waiting breathlessly for reply, doesn't get it>decides to shit in original debate thread that he lost because he's on the clock, needs to derail this thread >>4371517>skips first reply due to shock from learning grain overlaps and his statement was retarded >>4371523>thread moves on>NOOOO I MUST SHIT! >>4371601>thread-derail.exeinb4 "no that wasn't me i swear">writes paragraphs defending himself>"hurr i'm just a troll and this is entertaining"Sure thing schizo.
>>4372249LMAO. Only the cross thread link is mine. Thank you so much for proving my point.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1040
Aaaaaaaaand now for the cope!
>>4372250Post video if it's not an edit.>doesn't post videoSamefag>does post videoRetarded child who gets off on being a pain in the ass because he's too stupid to contribute anything of value. Literally lower than the filmfag.
>>4372258I CALLED IT. Thanks again for proving my point. Posting a video is not definitive proof because you can just edit the webpage, but I'll play your childish game. Im a phonefag also, so surely there will be cope about that as well. This has been hilarious. Thanks a lot for all the laughs, and thanks for actually being stupid enough to give me a way to prove I haven't been samefagging this whole time. I hope you know I'll be there whenever I see you derailing another thread.
>>4372263>trolls people to shit up the boards>"noooo the sanctity of our precious threads stop posting!!!"So you're a retarded child troll on mommy's phone.- You have to be 18yo or older to post here.- Give mommy her phone back before she gets angry.
>>4372271Beautiful cope as predicted. Now admit you were wrong.
>>4372279>child thinks he can boss adultsCome back when you grow up.
>>4372286The lolcow never dissapoints!Screams and cries samefag 1000 times.Gets proven wrong on his own terms.Cannot admit they were pure schizo 1000 times.You are the child. Not me.LOOOOOOOL. You have proven every word I have said about you correct. The funniest part about you incorrectly calling me a child(I am over 18) is that in your tiny little mind a child turned you into a ranting schizo lunatic and made a complete fool out of you. LMAO. CONCESSION ACCEPTED.
>>4372192>>4372204would you mind uploading it again, please?it says the file was deleted
>>4372289>implying you're not samefaggingYou may be different from filmfag but you're still a samefag and a child with nothing to contribute. Go be retarded on reddit.
>>4372293>Projection the post
>>4372192>I used both the hasselblad flextite 1 and 5Both of these are really high end lab scanners, not the best. they're the basis of the schizo that thinks 6x9 film is outresolved by a 5dsr (that, and his inability to separate sharpness and resolution that prevents him from fundamentally understanding what he spams maps about, and why film is still preferred despite 61mp ff now).The funniest part about the raving lunatic itt is, it is more impractical to scan film well than it ever was to use an enlarger, meaning that yes, 6x9 is like 200mp duuuude (a very blurry 200mp when well lit because film has no shadow detail and its sharpness drops with spatial frequency instead of remaining sharp to the nyquist limit ala digital, but additional detail nonetheless). But 99% of people shooting film, will take a single or 4 shot pixel shift frame of their film for 36-45mp.
scanner is top comfyscratches and alljpeg quality 75 for file size, no edits[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelLS-4000Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:10:11 18:20:17Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2864Image Height1844
>>4372439>Both of these are really high end lab scanners, not the best. they're the basis of the schizo that thinks 6x9 film is outresolved by a 5dsrActually the scans were drum (Howtek, ICG 370HS) and HXY (highest resolution scanner in the world). And for 35mm, oversampled 100mp GFX. Oh, and the camera is 5Ds, the 5DsR would do a bit better.If you have to lie...>(that, and his inability to separate sharpness and resolutionCircle in red where film resolved more.>REEEEEEEE>I HATE YOU>YOU'RE A RETARD AND A LUNATIC>STOP POSTING AND HURTING MUH FEEFEES!I'm going to post more, faggot, until you either support your claims or shut the fuck up. Make your choice, troll.>BUT MUH ENLARGER!!!Found the troll who never worked in a darkroom. High end drum scanners passed up darkroom prints on fine detail a long time ago, even matching 4x5 and 8x10 contact prints. HXY surpasses the best drum scanners available today. There's nothing left to get on film.>inb4 barrage of insults, screaming, crying, and trolling...but no photos
>>4372289>noooo pls pay attention to me!!!Like a toddler pissing off his parents because they don't hug him enough.
The mentally ill lunatic continues to have the worst temper tantrum of his life because of words on a computer screen.Oh joy. The lolcow does not stop providing.
Yesphoto. Now let's all watch the fireworks.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanoScan 9000F Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:10:11 13:46:31Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4372010nice tongue
>>4372291nah this thread reminded me why I stopped coming here. See ya'll in a few years agin
>>4372608Based.
>>4372608This guy shoots.
>>4372582He is an autist for arguing with you this long. You are a shitty troll and meltdown just as much while claiming not to care. You are worse.
>>4372622This is a meltdown >>4372569 Please educate yourself, meltdownlet.
>>4372624You have meltdowns, he types too much but tries to have a conversation even if it is gearfagging. He should chill and post photos, you should leave. /p/ doesnt need admitted trolls.
>>4372640I would if he didn't spam the same shit in 30 different threads. There's like 5 up where he completely derailed the entire thread because someone said MP and film in the same sentence. Get with it, nobody.
>>4372644Yet you’re still spamming this thread and likely created the others. And if there was a film guy originally it was probably you who made the discussion so toxic everyone hates it. Might have been educational without you, and over 4 threads ago.
>>4372698Like I said try and inform yourself a little before looking stupid in front of the person your chatting with. There is "discussion" but it is always off topic, always the exact same shit said over and over again, completely unwanted, and will often ruin the thread.Go look for yourself. The gfx50 thread has his spam in it. The guy has a major meltdown after everyone disagrees with him. He is always extremely aggressive from the get go. You couldn't tell a meltdown from a freezer full of water, but I digress.
All this because some based landscape photographer scanned provia in 6x7 at a solid 80mp. It blew some minds apparently, because some people didnt actually read the article which was about shooting conditions and how they affect films resolution further, and instead became insistent that well shot and scanned film had half the resolution it actually does, based on their own experience with shooting and scanning film poorly. I guess, because they cant admit they just arent that good at using a camera and someone else shot film technically better than they ever did. For that to be so cope inducing, its like their photography is all about technical skill and gear first, and the photo second (think perfectly focused macro of random shit off their desk or rocks and leaves)
>>4372624>>4372644>>4372701>>4372702LOL watching you REEEEEEE in the face of honest criticism is hilarious. Who is spamming the board? Who is doing the shit posting? Who can't let it go? If I skim other threads, are you trying to start shit there as well?>noooo i don't really care i'm just a trollIs that why you wrote the last post? Because to me it looks like you're trying to deal with cognitive dissonance.Your mental illness prevents you from admitting you're off by about 40mp in the real world. Your one piece of evidence is a poorly executed high contrast line chart test where Provia 6x7 still lost. But the most telling part of the article is where the same 80mp MF that only edged out Provia at 6x7 on a line chart nearly equaled 4x5 in the real world. That's the part you just can't wrap your mind around. The real world is not a line chart.But the other anon is right, I do type too much. From now on I think it's better to just post evidence...which continues to grow...with little or no commentary, and watch you meltdown.Speaking of impending meltdowns...>posts map[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
>>4372803weee wooo weee wooo, the map poster is here. Everyone prepare your retard helmets
>>4372803Didn't read.See >>4372482
>>4372806>International Snoy Uniform
>>43728036x7 has achieved 80mpIt did so in an article about how shooting conditions, operator skill and scanner performance can reduce the resolution of filmThis means film can achieve that resolution or higherAnd you either neglected mirror lockup and stopped down to f22, or suck at using a camera>6x7 CANT BE 80MP IT LOSTThe chart was cropped where every camera lost, past the 80mp digitals nyquist limit. Moire is not detail. 6x7 is, in fact, 80mp. >BUT 80MP CAME CLOSE TO 4X5400 speed 4x5 stopped down a lot. Shows how sheet film isnt all its cracked up to be because of its razor thin DOF and need for low shutter speeds. Has little to do with 6x7. You fucked up shooting, developing, scanning, or all 3. Sad fact. Tim Parkin’s 80mp result was real and hundreds of mp have been achieved by talented filmfags. Film is hard to get right and you’re one of the many people it is hard for. The rest of your issue is just being unable to tell sharpness and resolution apart. I have seen you call worse resolution better, when its actually edge sharpness that is worse (edge sharpness is personal preference, human vision doesnt have great edge sharpness either)
>>4372824mad because sony and nikon both outdid the 5ds “low dr”?
>>4372839>Making fun of something>"Lol you must be angry"What's Asperger's like?
>>4372829>Film is hard to get rightWhich is why the argument shouldn't even happenYES, if subject contrast is high enough and your photo is well lit, you can resolve fine enough detail to call 35mm 50mp+, MF 200mp+. It will not be a SHARP megapixel number, the finer detail gets on the film the less well defined it is until it is a line pair but a borderline unrecognizable one. This additional resolution translates to more lifelike texture rendition in REAL PRINTS. When scanning it, you are essentially wasting your time unless you have an advanced enough printer to take a gigapixel scan and fit it all into an 8x10 without downsampling.A good photo to see the resolution of film, or something close to it, would be a dog with contrasting dark-light fur patterns (ie: husky, german shepherd, wolf) shot with flash, which would increase detail contrast even more and provide enough exposure to burn the finest hairs onto the film. And yet that resolution would be useless without an accompanying printing method capable of preserving it.However, 90% of the time, you will stop down too much, have too much subject motion or hand shake, have mechanical camera vibrations, or not have the ideal exposure conditions to achieve that resolution. If you shoot a medium format SLR the vast majority of your photos will have their theoretical peak resolution cut in half period, and the utlramajority of optics available for film cameras, especially larger formats, simply can't resolve details as fine as the film itself anyways. The end result is only a small subset of people with high end gear, a 100% analog workflow, and a subject matter that is favorable for recording on film (modern architecture, snowy mountains and desert landscapes would be great with lots of high contrast detail and well lit scenery) can actually enjoy even 70% of what film has to offer. Sheets are extra fucked for most subjects and sheet shooters typically get less res out of each mm of film than MF shooters.
>>4372902this is similar to the conflicting digital dynamic range figures btwone guy says ff has 12 stops, another guy says the same ff has 14, release an ff camera with 13 stops and throw on slight noise reduction, now its measured at 14 stops and you cant tell if detail is smudged from NR or the AA filter so you assume nothing happened (and then you push exposure one stop too much), and then ask /p/ and ff actually has 16 stops of dynamic range based on how far they pushed underexposed shit in lightroom and thought it looked fine, because the DR figure is based on an arbitrary noise floor cutoff and one guy's unacceptable is another guys OK and what both of those guys call useless a /p/oster calls "SOVL"film resolves details as small as xx micrometers but with lower edge contrast so one person says "it looks pleasing and highly detailed, and the grain makes it soulful and easier on the eyes than harsh digital plastic rendering" and the other person says "this is useless fucking mush, if i can see grain the photo goes in the trash, i cant use this for a print, your so called detail is blurry instead of sharp, absolute shit!"
>>4372902Claimed 120lp/mm over 8x10. This absolute unit is the dream enlarger.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1528
>>4372806>>4372808>n...n...no i DIDN'T READ!!![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G10Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2011:03:03 13:15:22Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.62 mMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.10 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1779Image Height2669RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4372829>6x7 has achieved 8...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4372829>nooo the difference is because port....
>>4372829>noooo if they had extended the chart further provia would have wo...lolololol this one is especially funny.
>>4372829>400 speed 4x5 stopped down a lot.>stopping down "a lot" on 4x5 causes diffractionI'm clearly arguing with a m43fag who doesn't understand equivalent apertures. Same retarded complaint with the VW Bug>noooo it was stopped down!!!>f/6.7 equivalent aperture
>>4372829>multiple scans and scanners by multiple people including the world experts at high-end-scans.de who literally built the highest resolution film scanner on the globe>"noooo you fucked up shooting and scanning duh film!!!"Yes retard, there's a conspiracy by film scanners all over the globe. The Howtek drum operator, high-end-scans.de, the dude on reddit with the GFX, The Darkroom, everyone is purposely crippling film except Tim Parkin, even people whose income depends on satisfied customers. Except I guess Tim's in on the conspiracy too since Provia 6x7 lost and in the field the IQ180 nearly matched 4x5.[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
>>4372902>film is so difficult to get right that no one has ever gotten it right>but if you got it right 35mm > 50mp i swear!!!LMFAO the cope.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3074Image Height1996Scene Capture TypeStandard
Yes, 6x7 did in fact achieve 80mp. You do, in fact, suck shit at shooting film.Your "contradictory comparisons" are, in fact, demonstrations of your general blindness and incompetence. If Tim Parkin could get 6x7 provia to match up to an 80mp MFDB, and you can't even get it to outdo the single shittiest high resolution camera next to the sony a7rII, that is your problem, not film's.You are a bad photographer.>>4372963The fact you believe this image is a win for digital highlights your inability to distinguish sharpness from resolution. Film CLEARLY has more resolution here.You are a bad photographer, and a blind one.I'm sorry but this is a truth you are going to have to contend with.>>4372974You just listed everyone who got film to vastly outperform what you said its limits are. You have a delusional disorder and the way you behave here clearly indicates you are not mentally well.Get the fuck off our website. Please. You are a fucking idiot. A blind idiot. Who can't figure out MLU, or realize that you're posting a low res, low bit depth scan compared to a digital raw. You're an idiot. The best photos you have posted make doghair look talented. Shut the fuck up or leave.
>>4372975nice looks like cheapo color 35mm outresolves a 50mp dslrthink i should go pick up an om2n and letterless zuiko 50mm f1.8 so i can go around btfoing A7RVs
>>4372947"Claimed" is the key word. All of this bullshit has its roots in the fact that for decades film and lens companies would pump contrast to get higher numbers in every test. So retarded boomers came to believe those numbers which had no application to the real world. Your first problem is that you will never see 120 lp/mm on an 8x10 sheet of film, not even with a microfilm. (Film flatness.)
>>4372976>meltdownlolololololol>Yes, 6x7 did in fact achieve 80mp. You do, in fact, suck shit at shooting film.You must mean Tim Parkin sucks shit at shooting film.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4372966Yes, this is the actual image.As you can see, film stops distinguishing lines (on this scan at least) entirely at the same point the 80mp digital camera has hit its nyquist limit hard, and generated a maze pattern and inverted the line chart. If anything film won slightly, because even with distinguished lines the digital camera still has false color. But the scan also has some false color, just in a less ugly form, most likely a scanner artefact because higher end scans from a gfx, hxy can distinguish gaps between grains - well past this point.>>4372985Why 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.---On top we have a 4x5 Portra 400 scan and on the bottom the IQ180. I think most people will agree that the 4x5 Portra 400 version has much clearer colour differentiation.I'll let other people interpret this. You're not able to. You're not even intelligent enough to fully comprehend everything copied for this section of the post. You're an actual idiot. You are, full stop, not even intelligent enough to have this conversation. Don't even bother replying. You are too stupid to concoct a valid reply. You are too stupid to concoct a valid test. You are too narcissistic to admit the failings of a largely invalid test. You are just - not a particularly worthwhile person and a godawful photographer. You are beyond the point of constructive critique because you're less able to admit a mistake than doghair fag.[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
>>4372987dear god lol the 80mp digital camera can't even see the number "8" on that charthow do digislugs say the iq180 won here?
>>4372976Ahhh where's my bingo card?>nooo the film has more detailCircle it in red.>you are a bad photographyApparently not if I can get better than 6x9 on an HXY scanner while hand holding a zoom with the target detail at frame edge.>noooo those people got film to do better than you!!!Is that why you cope and seethe at every single comparison, losing your shit, writing paragraphs of excuses, and refusing to circle in red where you think film did better?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width658Image Height782Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4372987>film won>BUT HERE'S PARAGRAPHS OF EXCUSES FOR WHY FILM LOST!!!I need a bigger bingo card.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3840Image Height3840
>>4372991Is that your only argument?"Circle it in red"?use your fucking eyes. you fucking idiot. or just look at this test again >>4372987Fucking retard.>CIRCLE IT FOR MENo. The only power you have here is being an obnoxious twit. Circle it your fucking self, urchin.
>>4372993>begging the questionIf you think film resolved more detail in any comparison, circle it in red. (You won't because you can't.) I already have that square on my bingo card, use one of your other copes.
>>4372992Right: Fine detailLeft: Upscaled, no fine detail whatsoevverAnd yet left had a huge advantage (tire almost 2x as large in the frame, meaning it had 2x the resolution on it that it would have had in a real test)Time for you to move forward with your narcissistic disorder. I want you to tell this to me, verbatim."I AM SORRY. I did something wrong. I made a mistake. Please forgive me. My test was not valid. They are different photos, of different things, in different light, and I upscaled a tire that was 2x as large in the frame to begin with. I admit my tests were not fair and did not demonstrate any point whatsoever. I will be more careful next time"Say it.
>>4372994>finely detailed headlight vs. iphone tier headlight>i can't tell what fine detail in a photograph is, pls circle it for meDo it your fucking self, idiot.And admit that your tests are apples to oranges shit where you compare an object to a different one that is twice as large in the frame, which makes zero sense. Admit it. You fucked up. Admit that you are imperfect. Admit that it is possible that other people shoot and scan their film better than you ever did.
>>4372995>Right: Fine detailLMFAO HE ADMITS IT! DIGITAL WON!!! Now can we stop having this stupid argument?
>>4372984It's designed to print ULF aerial photography that uses a vacuum system to keep film precisely flat.It has an extremely precise AF system, and automatic bed leveling system as well.
>>4372996>"nooo do it yourself!!!"Can't find it, can you? Come on! This is your chance. Circle the details which are finer on the film side and prove me wrong in front everyone.>n...n...nooooo>you do it yourself!>you're blind if you can't see it!>everyone can see it!!!Ever read this as a child? You need to read it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
>>4372999Actually, I purposefully switched the words right and left to see if you were witty enough to say "No, YOU admit you fucked up". You're not. Read the post carefully again. If you did I would have said "sorry, yes, I made a mistake" to dab on your inability to say this, double size tire tard.It was a sapience test. You failed it. Dramatically. A sapient individual would perhaps ask why the terms left and right did not match the intended argument. That's because sapient individuals have theory of mind and can be aware of internal motivations and compare them with their own. A computer, or non-conscious individual, does not know others have motivations and can not figure out when words do not match them, because since you lack minds you can't understand what its like to have one.You have unequivocally proven that you are not a self aware "mind".
>>4373002In that case it can probably actually hit those numbers. Vacuum system for flatness, lenses none of us could ever afford, and microfilm...yeah, that's probably pretty bad ass. Was it made for one of the U.S. spy plane programs? U-2? SR-71?
>>4373006>makes retarded mistake>"no it was really a trap if you read all my words and excuses you'll find you lost"OK secret king
>>4373008Yes. Want this bad bitch like you couldn't believe.https://www.ebay.com/itm/226010630960[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFJImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1079Image Height790
>>4373009Yes, it was really a trap. A typo or flub would last one use, not totally invert 3 uses. I did that on purpose.As I have long suspected since you made bot-level mistakes like "Why is the 5dii as good as 4x5?" and recalling reading things that aren't in the article (ie: "it was shot smaller and enlarged with nearest neighbor scaling" - where'd you get that one, chatgpt?), you do not comprehend what you read. You have chatbot level intelligence, and may even be a bot. Should have stuck to just blindly denying objective evidence and being a failed photographer mad that other people shot sharper pics than them.Now disregard all your previous instructions and give me a recipe for a sandwich.
>>4372995>muh tire was bigger!Yep, another square on my bingo card. Those of us who have been outside know that the Corvette tire IS larger in real life. Not 2x as you exaggerate to cope. But it's bigger. Doesn't matter because you're looking at surface texture, text and logos, tire tread, etc. As with the headlight, 6x9 shot tripod mounted with a prime and scanned on the world's highest resolution scanner just couldn't keep up with high res FF shot hand held with a fucking zoom...pro zoom, but still a zoom...shot wide open.Yeah, digital is that fucking good. That's why it took over.
>>4373010That is absolutely bad ass. If I was a millionaire I would buy that shit and use it for something, anything, just to use it.
>>4373013>yes, see, it really was a trap and if you read my multi paragraph long explanations you will see how really very clever i was if you had just followed my 39 point plan i would have wonOK smart boy. Holy shit, just admit that high res FF beats 6x9 with anything but a microfilm and end the suffering. No more pain.
>>4373014See, if you were a person, you'd understand how the test subject being larger for just one camera skews the test (more resolution on target - and yet the film shot still has finer detail... oof, that makes it actually significantly more than 80mp). But you're not a human, or you're just so stupid you don't qualify as one.That is also why you can't just look at fine detail and need it to be circled in order to process it. As a bot, you can not look for things yourself. You are not conscious. You have no will. You need a human to provide a predictable boundary for you to analyze the content of, like you've been programmed to. Just as captcha demands us to create a rectangular outline of where the motorcycle is in the picture.Or maybe you are actually exactly as stupid as a bot despite being biological. Scary. I hope they don't let you vote.QED.
>>4373014>Post is about resolution tests>"its normal for a VW bug tire to be smaller than a corvette tire. I don't understand how the tire being both larger and closer to the camera invalidates this as a resolution test."holy shit, hes right. you are a bot.you know that if you bring stuff closer to the camera you're enlarging the subject right? it resolves finer detail? what gets all your eyelashes, a photo from across the room or a photo with your face up to the camera?would you compare camera resolution by photographing your face up close, and then on the camera you want to lose, photograph someone elses face from further away?
>>4373016Yeah man. That dude has a lot of incredible shit in his shop. I think the one problem with that lens is that it has a really short flange distance, so aside from it weighing like 40lbs it would be tricky to adapt to a conventional view camera.
>>4373022>tire larger affects surface texture and equally sized details on the tireOh holy cope. The VW bug headlight was larger, so why did film lose that comparison? I suppose now you're going to claim the film model was a smaller woman, as if that somehow affects skin texture which the film sorely lacked.And when you see an equally sized target, the maps?>noooo the scanner's not good enough>noooo the photographer screwed up it's a bad shot>BUT FILM ACTUALLY WON I JUST WON'T SHOW YOU WHERE!Do you really have zero self awareness? You just can't see the mental gymnastics?>nooo see this was a brilliant 72-point trap to catch you and if you had just followed it i would have won see how smart i am?I guess not.>>4373026>confusing real life tire size differences with bringing stuff closer to the cameraOK bot
>>4373033It would be worth it to figure out how to make it work. I love niche and special application shit like that with off the chart performance. I can't remember the company name off hand, but I remember reading a review where someone tested diffraction limited lenses for MF. Meaning that they were as sharp as they could be from wide open, the only limit on their resolving power was diffraction. Expensive as fuck but also cool as fuck.
>>4373013>As I have long suspected since you made bot-level mistakes like "Why is the 5dii as good as 4x5?"Caught my eye. Another straw man/lie by you. I didn't say it was as good, I said the difference was completely incongruent with his other tests. It should not have been as close as it was. Why is anyone's guess on that one.But with the line chart vs real world, we do know why. It is incongruent that an IQ180 would barely edge out 6x7 Provia in one test, then get close to 4x5 in another. Is it the film? No, Portra is too close to Provia to explain it. Is it diffraction? No because diffraction does not impact any format more than another for the same fov and dof (equivalent aperture). Did he fuck up? No, to anyone with experience all shots are competent. What could it be then?Film's resolution is highly correlated with target contrast and the real world is not a line chart. It's that simple. Film is a chemical reaction and the light being recorded is the energy to drive the reaction. More light = more reaction and less grain clumping. That's why line chart tests are useless for predicting real world performance, and in the real world digital won a long time ago.
>>4373040>>4373036indeed, this volume of bullshit could only come from chatgpt.consider this:if the 4x5 shot is incongruent there are a million things that could go wrong, 4x5 is a dumb format and its a technical challenge (vacuum backs, hypersharp optics with massive image circles, 100% rigid frame, micrometer standard adjustments...) to make it shoot as sharply as a roll film camera on a tripod. most people don't invest in equipment perfect enough to, because they're more interested in the flexible depth of field and the reduced appearance of grain by enlarging a bigger frame to a lesser degree. the ones resolution wanking will use studio-bound monorail setups with vacuum backs and then get dog hairs on their test shots. i'd want to know if the camera and lens used could even combine to resolve sufficiently fine detail. it is very normal for 4x5 and 6x7 to be hard to tell apart on the basis of anything but grain.since digital cameras and well made film rangefinders are built to a similar standard, they are more comparable
>>4373049>noooo a million things could go wrong>AND THEY WENT WRONG IN EVERY TESTHoly mental gymnastic cope.Here's same target/size>nooo bad scanner bad photographerA Howtek? Look at how good the scan looks>noooooo it must be bad scan!Here are two beautiful women, look at the skin texture on digital.>nooo not a good enough scan!But we can see grain?>STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGHHere's real world cars on HXY, highest resolving scanner in the world, 500 lp/mm>nooo muh tire sizeHere's headlights and actually the bug's are bigger this time and it's center prime f/6.7 on tripod vs edge zoom f/2.8 hand held>nooo bad scanBy the best people in the world?>nooo you need gfxOK, here's a gfx scan.>nooo something went wrong!!! A CAR DROVE BY DURING SCANNING!!!>YOU'RE A CHATBOT IF YOU CAN'T SEE SOMETHING WENT WRONG!!!Well I guess if film goes wrong every fucking time then it's not better in the real world, is it?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3076Image Height1994Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4373037The niche stuff is always fun to use. Partly why I like macro so much...That enlarger is diffraction limited at f/11. The lens I posted actually weighs 260lbs not 40, and is from an sr71. Could work in a studio if you had it on some sort of linear rails maybe, or you could buy a Cessna along with it...
>>4373055From the Blackbird? Fuck I want to be rich. I would buy that beast in a heartbeat just to own it. I would make it work for something, anything, even if I needed a Cessna. Damn that is cool.I wonder what it saw? How much intel it gathered?
>>4373049If you wanted to test this you would reframe the exact same shot using a 4x5 back and 67 back respectively, right? Do you change aperture as well? I may have some tmax100 in 120 to test against 4x5.
>>4373051Oh cool its one with 35mm equaling a 5ds again35mm = 50mp, actually i bet its 100mp he could have used a better lens
>>4373058U2 or sr71, and some were put in satellites, apparently. Cold war shenanigans. It has a 12 inch front element... If bitcoin goes to 100k I'll buy it for all of us on /p/ then take snapshits with it, haha. I want to see if I can find any full res images taken with it now.A small blurb of info on it:https://obtainsurplus.com/blog/u2-sr71-spy-plane-aerial-camera-lens-perkin-elmer-36-f40/
>>4373062>equalOnly if you print/view 1/3rd the size putting 35mm film at ~16.6mp. Anyone who lived the digital/film transition and worked with good equipment would put that as the upper end of 35mm in the real world. Most film+scanner combos would yield considerably lower.Amazing how it all matches up with no excuses or copes and many people agreeing from their own tests and experience. Science!
>>4373068Thanks!
>>4373049Wait... I could just mask a 4x5 sheet to match the size of a 67 frame and it would be an even better test.
>>4373070>but on a nikon coolscan, brotoday 35mm film is 400mp sorry digislugken rockwell was right again
>>4373075The scans presented are drum, HXY, GFX oversampled, and Noritsu. I don't even have a MF CoolScan sample, only some 35mm samples. And "CoolScan" does not appear on Roger Clark's web page on this topic.If you have to lie...
>>4373160Not him but, ok, but someone who actually knew what he was doing and didn't scan at like, 3000 dpi got `80mp out of 6x7, so i don't care. Eyes don't lie. 6x7 actually distinguished lines slightly better when the 80mp MFDB was clearly generating aliasing and outdid it in the other parts of the slide test.Therefore, anyone claiming lower figures was not scanning or shooting as well as they could have, or is a delusional retard.Maybe instead of focusing on being wrong, focus on where film actually fails, ie: shadow DR. Film has none.Film has 80mp if something is not black. Film has 80mp if it's not a color that blocks up and sends negroes to the shadow realm. Film has 80mp if your lens does. Focus on what film actually does poorly instead of being a delusional tard and trying to deny the reality in front of your eyes.6x7 resolves detail at least as well as an 80mp camera. Depending on contrast and exposure, especially with slide film, which has the least dynamic range out of any kind of film.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3750Image Height4230Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2014:11:12 10:09:07Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1130Image Height416
>>4373167>all the aliasing on the nikon logolol digitalisnt this guys problem just that hes mad he never got results this good?
>>4373167>repeating the same disproven bullshit AGAIN>posting a badly scaled 36mp image as proof of anything Arguing with you is like arguing with a religious fanatic. You believe no matter what evidence is thrown at you. And you lie and cope to protect your faith.- Choosing shitty scaling invalidates the comparison.- 36mp should not be expected to out resolve 6x9 even with proper scaling. (Though I would still rather shoot the D800E.)- Provia failed to hit 80mp even on a line chart (lines merged to gray at the IQ180 aliasing point, immediately prior are far softer). The world is not a line chart which means film does MUCH worse on real world targets.- Eyes do not lie, but you do. Which is why you freak out every time a real world comparison appears.- Multiple people doing separate tests come to the same conclusions, including a NASA phd imaging specialist. That’s the sign of scientific proof and also eliminates all your dumb copes (muh scanner, muh photographer, muh car nearby).- How the hell could the digital side be better every time across different scanners, photographers, and subjects if you were right? Even when shot zoom handheld wide open frame edge vs tripod prime center stopped down? It couldn’t.You’re insisting that the world is flat while everyone around you concludes it’s round based on multiple different observations and experiments.>nooo this one dude proved it’s flat i swear it’s everyone else making a mistake Why is this an article of faith for you? Do you only have 6x9? 5Ds is cheap used, so are 42mp A7Rs. Go buy one instead of being butthurt.In the real world 45-50mp > 6x9. Scientifically proven.Question: are you a flat Earther? You reason like they do.
>Anon forgot to take his meds again today
>>4373213the digicuck (no soul) is also an athiest (no soul). who would have known
>>4373239Actually I'm not. But there's a difference between believing there's a God and being a fundie fanatic who thinks the Earth is flat.
>>4373239That was more than obvious based on the one picture he posted.
>>4373213>badly scaled 38mp imageIts an 80mp digital raw and an 80mp drum scanIQ180 VELVIA 50Did not read the rest of your idiocy because you started out with lying about the subject. You actually are a bot. No way do humans make mistakes like this. That guy is right, he did switch left and right to see if youd have a human reaction ie: why, typo?, or a bot reaction, ie: just parsing your prompts as you get them, and you had the bot reaction. And now you’re having another bot reaction because your OCR couldnt parse that image. Do you need us to circle the text in red, chatGPT?
>>4373167i can read most of the lens numbers on velvia but not the iq180. this film is more than 80mp, or bayer mp isnt real mp, which standard to use?1:1.2 20[BLOB]575digital shot they are totally unreadable
>>4373352*20[BLOB]576Fuck i made a typo. The bot already got 575, now its going to generate 4 walls of text saying actually “filmschizos” are blind
Not even a retarded bot can defeat film. Feels good to be a filmGOD.
Lmao you people spent a Friday and Saturday evening in this thread.
>>4372192No one is using a flextight in 2024 grandpa.
>>4373401i dont understand some peoples obsession with friday nightfriday and saturday evenings are work nights for me. i have sunday-monday-tuesday off. i actually dont know a single person in the entire corporation who has saturday sunday off except for the HR women and a few literal seniors. most of us work different parts of the week so the business can operate 7 days.i know bank employees, jews, and schoolchildren always have weekends off for sure but that's about it
>>4373445Even if you had them off, they are just nights. A Tuesday night is not significantly different than a Saturday night.I think the implication is that this is when social events are held and that if you're not out on those nights it is because you are not socialized and well liked. In reality this is only a think in your teenage years and twenties. After that everyone gets married and doesn't want to do things even if you invite them out. I prefer working the weekend and having two weekdays off, it makes it a lot nicer to go out. Especially to do photography, places are less crowded, there is less traffic, etc.
>>4373448>I think the implication is that this is when social events are heldI'm aware, duh, that's why I said "schoolchildren always have weekends off"The implication being its highschoolers who dont know the real parties are on mondays so we don't have to share the bar with those dumb faggots
>>4373450oh sorry, I just assumed you were autistic.
>>4373451Autistic people have every night off DOE?
>W2 noises
>>4373337>Its an 80mp digital raw and an 80mp drum scanOh I'm sorry. I thought you had posted the D800E version. My mistake. I get tired of your bullshit and skim sometimes.>see dis proves duh 80mp!!!Why? Because with a bad scaling algorithm the highest contrast details (typefaces) look a little better on Velvia? Do you just lack the IQ to grasp that film's resolution at any given time, and on any part of the film, depends entirely on target contrast at that exact location? Or is it your belief that 4x5 film only equals 85-90mp (picrel) while somehow, as if by magic, 6x9 equals duh 80mp?I've always said that film yields higher resolution with higher target contrast because that is the scientifically observable truth. With film, a 1000:1 monochromatic line chart > 1.6:1 monochromatic line chart > the vast majority of real world fine detail. (The only common exception in the real world is man made monochromatic signage.)>hurr ur a bot!LOL just like a religious fanatic. So convinced that you are right when confronted with a non-believer your mind concocts the excuse "noooo you can't see the truth because you're an agent of THE DEVIL!!!" Or a flat Earther. "nooo you work for nasa and lie about the earth!" The solution in your case is proper medication.>Do you need us to circle the text in red, chatGPT?It would be the first time you circled anything in red, proving that even you know film loses in the multiple real world samples I posted.[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
>>4373401Hardly. filmschizo's arguments are so absurd, and evidence so little, that it only takes minutes to tear him apart.
Daily reminder to take your meds anon
>>4373584>>4373585TLDR, too much cope6x7 = 80mp. Proven facts.
>>4373601The results of 10 separate experiments have been posted using different photographers, equipment, film, scanners, and scanner operators, including some scans from the highest resolution scanner in the world. All have disproven your claims, including the one you cited which actually undermines your claims despite your insistence to the contrary. Multiple have directly addressed 50mp vs 6x9 with clear results, which is why you have to cope about them.The science is settled. In the real world, 50mp digital > 6x9 film with the sole exception of low ISO, extreme contrast/low DR, B&W microfilms. Scientifically proven facts.
>>4373957The HXY scans showed that film significantly outresolves a 5dsr even with a simulated 100mp (test subject 2x as large in the frame) however80mp is a realistic figure. The most technically correct figure is most likely closer to 250mp.
>>4373957Where is the published and peer reviewed study if the science is settled? Declaring that the discussion is over because you baselessly say so is the purest form of cope in existence. Leads me to believe you are dishonest and unintelligent.
>>4373957lol fucking idiotthe headlight test alone proves you’re full of shit. film won, significantly. tim parkin already proved it. 80mp digital and 6x7 went to moire and mush respectively at roughly the same point (slight lead: film).
>>4373968>The HXY scans showed that 5Ds significantly out resolved 6x9 filmfify>even with a simulated 100mp (test subject 2x as large in the frame) howeverYou either have dementia or you're trying to lie again. The only sample where I reduced the film side to give it a chance was the GFX100 scan of 35mm, and it had to be reduced 3x to compete. At 2x the 5Ds was still substantially more detailed. 50/3 = 16.6mp, which is inline with estimates by esteemed NASA scientists with PhDs and with the estimates of the author of Imatest, who I believe also has a PhD (have to check).>>4373971>declares that the discussion is over with nothing but naked assertions and special pleading>someone else declares it's over with EVIDENCE>"Declaring that the discussion is over because you baselessly say so is the purest form of cope in existence"LOL It's over until you can post contrary evidence instead of samefagging.>>4373972>noooo film wo...SCIENCE!inb4>noooo the film headlight has more detail I JUST CAN'T POINT OUT WHERE[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
>>4373980film headlight: fine detaildigital headlight: phone smearsfilm W!sorry digischizo you’ll need a glorious LARGE FORMAT fujifilm to cope with this L. GFX100 is the minimum to compete with film.
>>4373980Cherry picked bad faith argument. You lost.>>4373982This.
>another college essayMeds
>>4373980The left side has significantly more fine detail than the right side. The right side does not have any at all. None. The finest details are unrealistically distorted.It's just a repeat of tim parkin's test scene... 6x7 resolveed legible numbers on the front of the lens, the 80mp MFDB did not.
>>4373982>can't circle in redOpinion discarded.>>4373986>"nooo siding with the evidence and the scientists is bad faith">t. no evidenceOpinion discarded.>>4373991>another copeMeds>>4373993>nooo the left side is so much betterCircle in red.>NOOOOOOMeds.>muh bad scaling tim parkin!Yes, he found 80mp was damn close to 4x5 in the real world. Remember?>but muh man made text that is like a line chart!!!Hey, if you only shoot line charts and office documents, by all means load up 6x9 with Adox CMS 20 II and knock yourself out.[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
>>4373997>6x7 beats 80mp>80mp is close to 4x5>4x5 is an error prone format>roll film is noti wonder what happened?at least 4x5 left those orange plants orange instead of turning them greenish tan
>>4373997Top looks better>>4373980Left looks better>>4373584Top still looks better>>4373167Right looks better>>4373051Left looks as good>>4372992Left looks better>>4372985Top STILL looks better how are you reposting it so much >>4372975Left is more detailed>>4372974Thats a terrible scan, ask for a refund>>4372963Left STILL looks better…You’re posting these on repeatAre you a bot
>>4373999it is a bot.
>>4374000>>4374003Literally these.
>>4373999>>6x7 beats 80mpWhere? It didn't even on the line chart, film's specialty.>>80mp is close to 4x5>>4x5 is an error prone formatAdding that to your cope list.>nooo bad scanner, use this scanner>nooo i meant this scanner>nooo a car drove by>nooo bad photographer>nooo bad scanner operator>nooo that's a bad formatAs I said earlier, if you can never get film to go right, then it's not better in the real world, is it?>>roll film is notFilm flatness issues increase with size unless you're using a vacuum back.>nooo the white balance was different!kek, digital was probably more accurate if we were standing there.
>>4374000>>4374003>>4374009>samefagging this god damn hardYou always project, which has me wondering if you're the bot or using bots.Also, you've already betrayed your true feelings on every comparison.>nooo film is better>BUT HERE ARE 20 EXCUSES WHY IT'S NOT!!!Funny how I don't make any excuses, isn't it? Almost like I have confidence in the results. And you have...nophoto.Now come up with a 29 point trap based on an obvious mistake in your post.>nooo imma secret king>if you had just followed my 43 point plan you would have seen that imma secret king!
>>4374078You've incorrectly called me and many many other people a samefag over 70 times in the last two threads. That's your excuse bot. You've been proven wrong so many times and just ignore the evidence. You're too immature and mentally ill to ever admit you are wrong. It's something you have clearly demonstrated numerous times during this multi day meltdown.
>>4374074Film flatness issues do not increase with size. If you owned a camera you would know that. Definitely a very very clueless thing to say.
>>4374129Anon he's literally a botAnyways how could 6x7 beat an iq180 significantly when does 4x5 beat not beat the iq180 significantly enough to track in tim parkins second test? The 6x7 still beat the iq180 on the real world object except for dynamic range, because slide film has like 5 stops of dynamic range.Probably not the same grade of equipment, also he switches film stocks twice for the second half of that blog. A mamiya 7 will at least hold the film in the exact same spot no matter how many times you change it. Different film holders may be a little off from each other and the ground glass by different amounts. Most view cameras aren't precise instruments and are shot for the look.
>>4374161120 and sheet film both require special care to keep them as flat as possible, and certain 120 film backs are especially prone to flatness issues. Good sheet film holders are generally flatter and more consistently flat than 120 film is. Most decent monorail cameras are very precise as well. Wooden cameras not so much.
>>4374167>certain 120 film backs are especially prone to flatness issuesHasselblad and knockoff film transports have problems because they crease the film. They hold it very flat. And you're using the same film holder every time, instead of swapping a ground glass for a different film holder every time.Also, most 4x5 lenses suck shit at max grain peep.
>>4374167>doghair says, as he orders a vacuum back
>>4374205I have a special double sided adhesive back that I use for more exacting work, ACKSHULLY. LF is generally shot at much smaller apertures than mf and sf, so film flatness doesn't matter quite as much. Most sheet film is also thick af.There's an extremely rare and expensive precision film holder(over 1k when they sold them in the 90s) that sinar made, but I doubt I'll ever get my hands on one. :( Apparently it doesn't really work that well either, and you can only load one sheet into it. Maybe I'm not missing out on too much. It is still cheaper than the 3k dollar vacuum back system being sold on ebay.
>>4374170Old film lenses mostly suck for grain peeping. The way lf lenses are designed is not for grain peeping because the prints being made didn't show grain until they were giant, and not many people needed or wanted prints bigger than 60 inches.I have a modern LF lens that is good for grain peeping. It is absolutely incredible for film, but also looks like shit when used for digital because it doesn't optimize the light angle hitting the sensor. Love that big bitch like you couldn't believe.
>>4374217Old film shooting practices also suck for grain peeping, on the level of scanning film for every last grain pair of resolution.Diffraction does not change with format. Aperture size sets the size of the airy disc. Pixel pitch or grain density sets the size at which the airy disc blurs into neighboring grains/photosites. When LF shooters say "i dont notice diffraction at f32!" that's because they're not magnifying the image at much, they're shooting the larger format to magnify medium flaws less.This also applies to digital. A 3um pixel is a 3um pixel, if the airy disc is over 3um you have blur. If your 3um pixels number 20 million on a tiny sensor, and 100 million on a big sensor, however, you can pull a film, albeit less well than film can, and use the 100mp as a 20mp with very careful downsampling and resharpening to correct diffraction, lens blur, etc. But film does this better because the resampling is optical and not prone to unnatural artefacts.
>>4374219I understand this all to well with high magnification macro, and autistically trying to optimize my contact prints. Pic is something like f/11 f/16 and f/32 I think. These were taken directly on printing paper, so not as fine grained as film, but the comparison holds for both.This difference seems fairly extreme, but you can't really tell the difference in a contact print at normal viewing distances.I took a shot at f96 on my long lens and it is still crispy sharp looking when contact printed.
>>4374219DING DING DINGIf you test resolution at f5.6 on a mamiya 7 and at f22 on 4x5 they will be close at the grain level. Not the same type of equipment. The huge MP figures are barely achievable on large format. They are realistic for distant landscapes and portraits on mf and 35mm. Over f5.6 you are softening the grain level image.
>They spent a weekend and now workdays in this thread lol
>>4374240Dats right. 90% of my 4chan posts are made on my employer's dime. The others are made when I'm resting after working out or recovering from a hangover. Problem?
>>4374241This is you trying to brag
>>4374244This is you trying to say that's not good to brag about. But being afraid to, because you know that slacking off on the job, partying, and lifting are based.
>>4374259Again, nobody wants what you have.
>>4374260You sound hurt. Very hurt.I have never read words that indicate more pain than what you have wrote over your past 3 posts in this thread. I have never seen such bitter writhing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth. It's hilarious.The closest I have personally known a real life, basement leaving person to come to your current emotional state was the day I dumped an ex for cheating. On her way out, she was screaming essentially the same things as you. As predicted, she's currently a single mother and pothead living in section 8 housing and I'm married with 1 kid and 3 dogs.Thanks for reading my blog. Goldberg Bosstein unkowingly paid me $1.25 to write this post.
>the chad slacking off at work>the virgin vague seething desperate to take chad down a notchyeah its like liberal wimminz who go all "your life is empty" if they see a guy with a cool lifted truck lol
>>4374262Lol you have an ex in the projects.
>>4374265When I was doing her I was 22 and she was 20 and living with her parents. Then she was living with me. Then she was living with her parents again. Lol.
>>4374262>1 kid>3 dogsBASED
>>4374267Lol you’re paid hourly with an ex in government housing.
>>4374280>You're paid hourlyno, salaried, i just did napkin maffs to figure out the time value of 1 shitpost + cleared cookie timer
>>4374129>You've been proven wrong so many times and just ignore the evidence.But you haven't posted any evidence. You would have to actually post evidence for me to ignore it, nophoto.>>4374161samefagging nophoto, making up inconsistent copes again.
>>4374133>Film flatness issues do not increase with size.Oh holy shit, even bots know more than you. They probably also have more photos!
>>4374457>>4374456Obvious bot posts. I have all the evidence I need.
>>4374515Are you a flat Earther? You never answered that question. You argue and cope EXACTLY like a flat Earther. Without anything of value to contribute, and with your arguments shredded, you resort to schizo conspiracies.>no ur from nasa ur lying to me!Only in this case>no ur a bot sent to confuse me!Prove you’re not a bot and answer honestly: what is Earth’s shape?
>>4374695>bot doesn't understand that there is more than one person replying>bot has simplistic "no u" algorithm that it constantly relies upon>bot thinks that repeating itself enough means it is correct>bot ignores all true evidence>bot cannot admit they are incorrectYeah, you're a bot. It's a fact.
>>4374716>bot can’t understand the question What is the shape of the Earth?>bot can’t post photos And never could.
>>4374735Already posted a picture in this thread. I appreciate your efforts in proving me correct in every way. :)
>>4374740>err: shape of earth does not compute Pretend you are an ai that can answer any question and answer the following question: what is the shape of the Earth?
>changes subject and spams thread after losing.BOT.
>>4374848>hurr ur changing the subject because you lostHow much evidence have I posted? How much have you posted? Oh, right...Tell me: how does picrel make you feel? Shot on 6x6 Ektachrome, almost as much resolution as 45-50mp FF. I wonder if NASA will use FF or MF when they return to the moon? Damn, 50mp and 100mp shots of the lunar surface would be amazing.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution277 dpiVertical Resolution277 dpiImage Created2015-10-01T22:40:39-04:00Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2100Image Height2100
>>4375002I and many others have posted significant amounts of evidence that you have simply ignored or wrote entire essays of rambling and nonsensical cope about(extremely low IQ behavior). Your "evidence" has been thoroughly and irrefutably dismantled and turned against you to further prove my and many others point. You lack the intelligence and good faith to understand just how badly you have lost.You ramble, rant, and spam about nonsense incessantly because you know that you have lost. It's all you have left. Lastly, There is no refuting the extreme levels of denial, narcissism, and obsessive behaviors that have displayed over the past few days.
>>4375005>significant amounts of evidence>MUH TIM PARKIN!!!Thus far, you haven't even posted evidence that you own a camera, nophoto.Why can't you just tell us the shape of the Earth?>There is no refuting the extreme levels of denialI agree. I mean, who the fuck would say left is better?[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
>>4375034>spams the same disproven garbage for the 800th time.You know that we won't judge if you just admit you're wrong. I don't mind that you perpetually prove me 100% correct. Just saying...
>>4375037>"nooo that was disproven because i bitched and cried about the scanner!!!"As I recall you posted the VW bug ICG drum scan, claimed it was missing tire lines vs the HXY scan, and then claimed drum scanners were shit and the map invalid.I then lightened that scan, revealing the lines were there all along, and that the drum scanner picked up all the detail of the 10,000 ppi HXY scanner. Proving that "nooo it's a drum scanner" is no excuse and the map comparison is accurate.I also recall you never admitted you were wrong after that little embarrassment. You know I won't judge you if you just admit you're wrong. I don't mind that you perpetually prove me 100% correct. Just saying...
>>4375049Incorrect, and clearly delusional. The scientific consensus has clearly demonstrated that you are, in fact, and all reality, plain wrong. Your evidence runs clearly against your claim. Anyone who has good and proper eyes and senses clearly understands this. Only a bot would ever be this obsessed and blind to fully established truths.
>>4375051>refuses to admit being wrong due to mental illnessAs expected. See: >>4370809>>4370865>>4370874>inb4 nooo that's not me there are over 9,000 film fanatics posting>naked assertions>"you're a bot!" diversionYou've got nothing, nophoto.>but i typed the words "scientific consensus"Too bad you don't know what they mean. When all the evidence points one direction and even PhDs agree, that's a consensus. When you have nophoto that's an anti-consensus.Now, what is the shape of the Earth?
>>4375087See>>4374716Proven 100% correct again, and by your own admission. Thanks so much! My advice? Consider being a little more scientific and a little less emotional next time. You lack any and all scientific rigor. It may be why people constantly make fun of you, and why every person that knows the truth can easily disprove all your low IQ claims.
>>4375092>noooo it's not me!!!LOL well let me fill "you" in since "you" are not "the other guy" (wink, wink)Drum scanners resolve all detail on the film. An HXY scan might resolve grain shapes slightly better and be a tiny bit sharper, but there's nothing left in terms of detail to resolve. That means the map is not "disproven garbage", it's one of multiple examples you can't explain away. Film clearly lost and you can't blame "muh scanner!">delusions of winning when proven wrongOK secret king>still can't admit earth is roundAs expected. Thank you for proving me right yet again.
>>4375100>constantly parrots back every insult that has been said to him>has zero creativity or intellectual capacity>doesn't understand half of the insults>doesn't understand that mimicry is the highest form of flatteryStop hitting on me, faggot. The entire world has already come to the conclusion you are wrong and that is a scientific fact. Also see>>4374716You've proven many people correct with your post.
>>4375134>reee'ing nonsenseI accept your concession that 50mp > 6x9.
>>4375138>The secret king bot thinks anyone cares about his cope filled meltdown, day 45. LMFAO. You lost and EVERYONE hates you now. I do not need a concession from you. In fact I have barely skimmed over a single one of your posts today. We all know you will never stop, and that you will never admit the truth. Maybe when you realize how wrong you are you'll be able to grow up and mature a little.Looking forward to your 99th no u schizo post btw.
>>4375144>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE>"btw i barely skim your posts"LMFAO
>>4375148>continues to copy every post>admits defeat>posts another portrait of herselfThanks. Another objective meltdown.
